Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #5547 > unrolled thread

An advantage of RSA encryption

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-01 16:52 +0200
    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-08-01 20:17 +0200
      Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-01 23:04 +0200
        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-02 04:32 +0200
        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-08-02 19:36 +0200
          Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-02 21:04 +0200
            Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-08-03 17:31 +0000
              Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 14:44 +0200
                Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 14:01 +0100
                  Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 15:07 +0200
                    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 14:21 +0100
                      Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 15:24 +0200
                        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 14:43 +0100
                          Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 15:49 +0200
                            Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 15:56 +0100
                              Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 22:05 +0200
                    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-08-04 15:24 +0000
                      Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 22:10 +0200
                        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 21:42 +0100
                          Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 23:05 +0200
                            Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 22:18 +0100
                              Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 23:58 +0200
                                Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 16:45 -0700
                                  Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 16:55 -0700
                                    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 22:12 -0700
                                      Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-05 07:58 +0100
                                        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:06 -0700
    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 06:50 -0400
      Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-03 18:28 +0200
        Re: An advantage of RSA encryption "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:07 -0400
          Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-06 11:01 +0200
    Re: An advantage of RSA encryption Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-08-04 15:26 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#5574

On 04/08/15 22:05, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Am 04.08.2015 um 22:42 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>> On 04/08/15 21:10, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>> Am 04.08.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Kaz Kylheku:
>>>> On 2015-08-04, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>> ok. Then please comment on what I wrote in parentheses.
>>>>
>>>> (dumb as a brick)
>>>>
>>> If you have good arguments, then give them. You are welcome to
>>> aid Heathfield in his argumentation.
>>
>> It's the other way round. I was expanding on Kaz's contribution, not he
>> on mine. Kaz knows a damn sight more about cryptography than I do.
>
> This is not important for the discussion. Important are your
> objective counterarguments to mine, if any.

I didn't realise you had any arguments. I thought you were asking a 
question. It seems to me that that question has been answered.

You had a follow-up question asking about high quality CSPRNGs. I 
haven't answered that because I don't have sufficient CSPRNG experience 
to contribute what I would consider to be a sufficiently high quality 
response to that question.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5577

Am 04.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> On 04/08/15 22:05, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> Am 04.08.2015 um 22:42 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>>> On 04/08/15 21:10, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>> Am 04.08.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Kaz Kylheku:
>>>>> On 2015-08-04, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> ok. Then please comment on what I wrote in parentheses.
>>>>>
>>>>> (dumb as a brick)
>>>>>
>>>> If you have good arguments, then give them. You are welcome to
>>>> aid Heathfield in his argumentation.
>>>
>>> It's the other way round. I was expanding on Kaz's contribution, not he
>>> on mine. Kaz knows a damn sight more about cryptography than I do.
>>
>> This is not important for the discussion. Important are your
>> objective counterarguments to mine, if any.
>
> I didn't realise you had any arguments. I thought you were asking a
> question. It seems to me that that question has been answered.
>
> You had a follow-up question asking about high quality CSPRNGs. I
> haven't answered that because I don't have sufficient CSPRNG experience
> to contribute what I would consider to be a sufficiently high quality
> response to that question.

You wrote ".....  or one finds a good, reliable CSPRNG that is already
publicly available for one's platform and which has been analysed by
the cryptographic community and found to be fit for purpose."

But an "analysis by the cryptographic community" that one can rely on
can in my conviction only be the algorithm of the CSPRNG, e.g. what one
reads in HAC. Software in closed-source is not trustworthy. Software in
open-source has risks of the genre of Heartbleed. So one has IMHO to
take one's own responsibility to implement oneself an algorithm
from e.g. HAC. Is that clear?

If you would prefer to let the discussion to be further carred out by
Kylheku and me alone, that's certainly ok. However, his last post
contained nothing of objective arguments, unfortunately.

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5578

So we get a break from radtard and it's spamming. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5580

So we get a break from radtard a its spamming. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5581

So we get a break from radtard and its spamming. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5582

On 05/08/15 06:12, Chad wrote:
> So we get a break from radtard and its spamming.

Do you think you're an improvement?

Try adding to the signal rather than the noise.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5584

Well I'm not turning comp.programming into my blog about Project Euler...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5553

In article <mpimf8$cc7$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de 
says...
> 
> The fact that anyone could send an encrypted message to the owner of
> a RSA public key in asymmetric encryption could be highly valuable in
> cases e.g. activists in non-democratic countries send (if they manage
> to anonymously send, eventually from an Internet cafe etc.) encrypted
> messages to the press in democratic foreign countries containing
> informations that, for some reasons, should not be immediately revealed
> to the public, nor known to any third parties.

If it should not be immediately revealed to the public or known to any 
third parties, then sending it to "the press in democratic foreign 
countries" is the action of a fool.

> The press might prefer
> obtaining such anonymous encrypted messages. The public key is simply
> announced in the media. (No certificates and CAs are needed at all!)

I'm sure the press would be happy to obtain anybody's secrets.  Which it 
would immediately publish.
 
> For a fairly simple and self-sufficient code (employing not
> probabilistic but provable primes) to perform end-to-end RSA
> encryption, see http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7234475/1/
> 
> M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5554

Am 03.08.2015 um 12:50 schrieb J. Clarke:
> In article <mpimf8$cc7$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de
> says...
>>
>> The fact that anyone could send an encrypted message to the owner of
>> a RSA public key in asymmetric encryption could be highly valuable in
>> cases e.g. activists in non-democratic countries send (if they manage
>> to anonymously send, eventually from an Internet cafe etc.) encrypted
>> messages to the press in democratic foreign countries containing
>> informations that, for some reasons, should not be immediately revealed
>> to the public, nor known to any third parties.
>
> If it should not be immediately revealed to the public or known to any
> third parties, then sending it to "the press in democratic foreign
> countries" is the action of a fool.

Sorry, I don't understand you. An activist may know only some small
part of the stuffs involved, which the foreign journalists, having
obtained the hints, could do fruther researches with their own means
and resources. Consequently the non-democratic governments (the "third
parties") preferrably shouldn't know yet that some critical
informations have already been leaked out that way.

>> The press might prefer
>> obtaining such anonymous encrypted messages. The public key is simply
>> announced in the media. (No certificates and CAs are needed at all!)
>
> I'm sure the press would be happy to obtain anybody's secrets.  Which it
> would immediately publish.

I disagree. See above.

M. K. Shen

>> For a fairly simple and self-sufficient code (employing not
>> probabilistic but provable primes) to perform end-to-end RSA
>> encryption, see http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7234475/1/
>>
>> M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5586

In article <mpo4rf$o5m$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de 
says...
> 
> Am 03.08.2015 um 12:50 schrieb J. Clarke:
> > In article <mpimf8$cc7$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de
> > says...
> >>
> >> The fact that anyone could send an encrypted message to the owner of
> >> a RSA public key in asymmetric encryption could be highly valuable in
> >> cases e.g. activists in non-democratic countries send (if they manage
> >> to anonymously send, eventually from an Internet cafe etc.) encrypted
> >> messages to the press in democratic foreign countries containing
> >> informations that, for some reasons, should not be immediately revealed
> >> to the public, nor known to any third parties.
> >
> > If it should not be immediately revealed to the public or known to any
> > third parties, then sending it to "the press in democratic foreign
> > countries" is the action of a fool.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand you. An activist may know only some small
> part of the stuffs involved, which the foreign journalists, having
> obtained the hints, could do fruther researches with their own means
> and resources. Consequently the non-democratic governments (the "third
> parties") preferrably shouldn't know yet that some critical
> informations have already been leaked out that way.

Until the press tells them.  The press does not keep secrets.
 
> >> The press might prefer
> >> obtaining such anonymous encrypted messages. The public key is simply
> >> announced in the media. (No certificates and CAs are needed at all!)
> >
> > I'm sure the press would be happy to obtain anybody's secrets.  Which it
> > would immediately publish.
> 
> I disagree. See above.

You've clearly never fucked a journalist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5588

Am 06.08.2015 um 04:07 schrieb J. Clarke:
> In article <mpo4rf$o5m$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de
> says...
>>
>> Am 03.08.2015 um 12:50 schrieb J. Clarke:
>>> In article <mpimf8$cc7$1@news.albasani.net>, mok-kong.shen@t-online.de
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> The fact that anyone could send an encrypted message to the owner of
>>>> a RSA public key in asymmetric encryption could be highly valuable in
>>>> cases e.g. activists in non-democratic countries send (if they manage
>>>> to anonymously send, eventually from an Internet cafe etc.) encrypted
>>>> messages to the press in democratic foreign countries containing
>>>> informations that, for some reasons, should not be immediately revealed
>>>> to the public, nor known to any third parties.
>>>
>>> If it should not be immediately revealed to the public or known to any
>>> third parties, then sending it to "the press in democratic foreign
>>> countries" is the action of a fool.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand you. An activist may know only some small
>> part of the stuffs involved, which the foreign journalists, having
>> obtained the hints, could do fruther researches with their own means
>> and resources. Consequently the non-democratic governments (the "third
>> parties") preferrably shouldn't know yet that some critical
>> informations have already been leaked out that way.
>
> Until the press tells them.  The press does not keep secrets.

Of course the press should inform the public at some time point
about the issue (otherwise what's the purpose of the whole?)
Have a comparison e.g. with the revelations by Snowden.

M. K. Shen

>>>> The press might prefer
>>>> obtaining such anonymous encrypted messages. The public key is simply
>>>> announced in the media. (No certificates and CAs are needed at all!)
>>>
>>> I'm sure the press would be happy to obtain anybody's secrets.  Which it
>>> would immediately publish.
>>
>> I disagree. See above.
>
> You've clearly never fucked a journalist.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5563

Am 01.08.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Mok-Kong Shen:
 > ... The press might prefer obtaining such anonymous encrypted 
messages. ...

Addendum: Since the press couldn't know the sender of the informations,
it has no responsibility, moral or otherwise, of reporting on the
source of informations.

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web