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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #19075 > unrolled thread

Keeping out Big Brother?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Keeping out Big Brother? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 17:07 -0400
    Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 18:23 -0400
      Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 19:57 -0400
        Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-30 20:07 -0400
          Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 02:43 +0000
            Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 23:51 -0400
              Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 05:22 +0000
                Re: Keeping out Big Brother? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-31 07:42 +0100
                  Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 09:22 -0400
                    Re: Keeping out Big Brother? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-31 16:50 +0100
                    Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-31 12:03 -0400
    Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-30 18:28 -0400
      Re: Keeping out Big Brother? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 19:41 -0400

#19075 — Keeping out Big Brother?

Overall, this sounds pretty good, but

  - "You can view the source code to be sure there's no back door."
    But you can't know whether the source code you viewed is what
    they actually used.  Nor whether there is the kind of back door
    described in http://tinyurl.com/d7ow765

  - Most of it sounds technically good, but the sentences about quantum
    computing strike me as marketing hype more than technical reality.

  - There's really no way for a guy like me to be sure the principals
    aren't actually NSA or some other group of spooks.  Or just a bunch
    of scammers getting money from the paranoid and doing other than
    claimed.

https://unseen.is/premium-landing.html

-- 
Wes Groleau

   He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
                   — Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19079

Wes Groleau:
> Overall, this sounds pretty good, but
> 
>   - "You can view the source code to be sure there's no back door."
>     But you can't know whether the source code you viewed is what
>     they actually used.  Nor whether there is the kind of back door
>     described in http://tinyurl.com/d7ow765
> 
>   - Most of it sounds technically good, but the sentences about quantum
>     computing strike me as marketing hype more than technical reality.
> 
>   - There's really no way for a guy like me to be sure the principals
>     aren't actually NSA or some other group of spooks.  Or just a bunch
>     of scammers getting money from the paranoid and doing other than
>     claimed.
> 
> https://unseen.is/premium-landing.html

Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
to compromise. Get over it, everyone.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#19090

On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
> Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
> in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
> so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
> to compromise. Get over it, everyone.

ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

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

#19091

In article <l4s6cu$n79$3@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
> > Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
> > in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
> > so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
> > to compromise. Get over it, everyone.
> 
> ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.

Presumably huge amounts of the data the NSA has gathered was encrypted. 
They have supercomputers dedicated to code-breaking to deal with that.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

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

#19100

In message <barmar-45EEEE.20072530102013@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <l4s6cu$n79$3@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>> On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
>> > Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
>> > in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
>> > so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
>> > to compromise. Get over it, everyone.
>> 
>> ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.

> Presumably huge amounts of the data the NSA has gathered was encrypted. 
> They have supercomputers dedicated to code-breaking to deal with that.

Doesn't matter how many computers they have, if you practice good
security, no one is going to read your data for centuries, not even the
NSA.

-- 
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."

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

#19106

On 10-30-2013, 22:43, Lewis wrote:
> In message <barmar-45EEEE.20072530102013@news.eternal-september.org>
>    Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article <l4s6cu$n79$3@dont-email.me>,
>>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>> On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
>>>> Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
>>>> in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
>>>> so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
>>>> to compromise. Get over it, everyone.
>>>
>>> ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.
>
>> Presumably huge amounts of the data the NSA has gathered was encrypted.
>> They have supercomputers dedicated to code-breaking to deal with that.
>
> Doesn't matter how many computers they have, if you practice good
> security, no one is going to read your data for centuries, not even the
> NSA.

"Unseen" claims to believe that NSA is able to decrypt most of the 'net 
traffic now, but they claim that _they_ (Unseen) are using stringer 
stuff that is safe.

Skim over their blog if you're interested.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
     that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
                       — Alexis de Tocqueville

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

#19110

In message <l4sk4q$ki3$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-30-2013, 22:43, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <barmar-45EEEE.20072530102013@news.eternal-september.org>
>>    Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <l4s6cu$n79$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
>>>>> Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
>>>>> in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
>>>>> so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
>>>>> to compromise. Get over it, everyone.
>>>>
>>>> ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.
>>
>>> Presumably huge amounts of the data the NSA has gathered was encrypted.
>>> They have supercomputers dedicated to code-breaking to deal with that.
>>
>> Doesn't matter how many computers they have, if you practice good
>> security, no one is going to read your data for centuries, not even the
>> NSA.

> "Unseen" claims to believe that NSA is able to decrypt most of the 'net 
> traffic now,

Oh, well, net-traffic. Yeah. They evidently have copies of all the SSL
keys they want to have and intercept all the unencrypted traffic to
boot.

I was talking about your own data on your own machine. It is perfectly
possible to lock it up so the NSA will never see it. But if you want to
send it out, you better encrypt it before it leaves your machine and
be sure the person on the other end keeps it encrypted.

-- 
Indecision is the key to flexibility.

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

#19112

In article <slrnl73q7o.1rl1.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <l4sk4q$ki3$1@dont-email.me> 
>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 10-30-2013, 22:43, Lewis wrote:
> >> In message <barmar-45EEEE.20072530102013@news.eternal-september.org>
> >>    Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>> In article <l4s6cu$n79$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On 10-30-2013, 18:23, Davoud wrote:
> >>>>> Nah. It's someone else guaranteeing what cannot be guaranteed. Hosted
> >>>>> in Iceland? How does it get to Iceland, by trusted courier? And what's
> >>>>> so special about Iceland, anyway? If it's on the Internet, it's subject
> >>>>> to compromise. Get over it, everyone.
> >>>>
> >>>> ALLEGEDLY, by being encrypted on your machine before going out.
> >>
> >>> Presumably huge amounts of the data the NSA has gathered was encrypted.
> >>> They have supercomputers dedicated to code-breaking to deal with that.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter how many computers they have, if you practice good
> >> security, no one is going to read your data for centuries, not even the
> >> NSA.
> 
> > "Unseen" claims to believe that NSA is able to decrypt most of the 'net 
> > traffic now,
> 
> Oh, well, net-traffic. Yeah. They evidently have copies of all the SSL
> keys they want to have and intercept all the unencrypted traffic to
> boot.

Unless the site generate their keys themselves. Then, of course, the 
visitor gets a weird semierror message in their browser. Time to 
breakout that tinfoil?
> 
> I was talking about your own data on your own machine. It is perfectly
> possible to lock it up so the NSA will never see it. But if you want to
> send it out, you better encrypt it before it leaves your machine and
> be sure the person on the other end keeps it encrypted.

Or that biiig family secret might leak into the White House...
-- 
teleportation kills

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

#19121

On 10-31-2013, 02:42, android wrote:
>   Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> "Unseen" claims to believe that NSA is able to decrypt most of the 'net
>>> traffic now,
>>
>> Oh, well, net-traffic. Yeah. They evidently have copies of all the SSL
>> keys they want to have and intercept all the unencrypted traffic to
>> boot.
>
> Unless the site generate their keys themselves. Then, of course, the
> visitor gets a weird semierror message in their browser. Time to
> breakout that tinfoil?

If you want to argue for or against their position, read it first.
Otherwise you're playing the strawman game.

http://blog.unseen.is/2013/06/15/is-most-encryption-broken/


> Or that biiig family secret might leak into the White House...

Sorry, we have no room for any more secrets.  Thank you for trying.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, “That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."

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

#19126

In article <l4tlhu$fdk$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 10-31-2013, 02:42, android wrote:
> >   Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>> "Unseen" claims to believe that NSA is able to decrypt most of the 'net
> >>> traffic now,
> >>
> >> Oh, well, net-traffic. Yeah. They evidently have copies of all the SSL
> >> keys they want to have and intercept all the unencrypted traffic to
> >> boot.
> >
> > Unless the site generate their keys themselves. Then, of course, the
> > visitor gets a weird semierror message in their browser. Time to
> > breakout that tinfoil?
> 
> If you want to argue for or against their position, read it first.

I was referring to that the NSA would have access to all private SSL 
keys. Of course they could hack those sites like any petty criminal but 
I think that that Lewis was that  some CAs might help them out. The 
reply was directed to Lewis not you. :-p

> Otherwise you're playing the strawman game.
> 
> http://blog.unseen.is/2013/06/15/is-most-encryption-broken/
> 
That's no game site...
> 
> > Or that biiig family secret might leak into the White House...
> 
> Sorry, we have no room for any more secrets.  Thank you for trying.

Sorry Mr. P. I didn't know that. Do you want me to send the "cleaners"?
-- 
teleportation kills

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

#19127

Wes Groleau:
> If you want to argue for or against their position, read it first.
> Otherwise you're playing the strawman game.
> 
> http://blog.unseen.is/2013/06/15/is-most-encryption-broken/

"We¹ve been told by people who know (or at least by people who say they
do and we believe them) that all publicly available encryption has been
cracked by outfits like the NSA."

They started with a statement that is untrue. They didn't get
information from anyone who knows about the success of NSA's
cryptographic program. Anyone can take a guess, and if it suits their
preconceptions, or their commercial interests, declare it to be true.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#19080

On 2013.10.30, 17:07 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> Overall, this sounds pretty good, but
>
>   - "You can view the source code to be sure there's no back door."
>     But you can't know whether the source code you viewed is what
>     they actually used.  Nor whether there is the kind of back door
>     described in http://tinyurl.com/d7ow765

Presumably one could compile it and verify the generated code 
(compare/inspect) in the more critical functions as well as compare 
output from their v. and yours.

>
>   - Most of it sounds technically good, but the sentences about quantum
>     computing strike me as marketing hype more than technical reality.

Indeed (below).

>
>   - There's really no way for a guy like me to be sure the principals
>     aren't actually NSA or some other group of spooks.  Or just a bunch
>     of scammers getting money from the paranoid and doing other than
>     claimed.

As usual.  But it's a good sign as well if there are solutions coming 
out to run around the spooks.  Time (and skeptical investigators) will tell.

>
> https://unseen.is/premium-landing.html


Pretty strong claims.  "Big Brother uses all kinds of technology 
including quantum computers to break into your messages"

The only commercial quantum computer delivered solves some problems very 
quickly - but can't be used at all for decryption.




-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

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

#19089

On 10-30-2013, 18:28, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.10.30, 17:07 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>> Overall, this sounds pretty good, but
>>
>>   - "You can view the source code to be sure there's no back door."
>>     But you can't know whether the source code you viewed is what
>>     they actually used.  Nor whether there is the kind of back door
>>     described in http://tinyurl.com/d7ow765
>
> Presumably one could compile it and verify the generated code
> (compare/inspect) in the more critical functions as well as compare
> output from their v. and yours.

Even if legit, it's almost certain to be different because you'll not be 
using the same compiler.  And you can inspect the code from your 
compiler, but not the code from theirs.

But I'm tempted to shell out the $49 because "I have nothing to hide"
:-) so I'd only be losing $49 and they (if they are spooks) would have 
that much more work to do!

Articles on their blog make them sound a little better, but then if I 
had the same goals (and budget) as NSA, pretending to be anti-NSA would 
be a great way to get past people's defenses.

http://tinyurl.com/km2fecf

Like the "_NSAKEY" found in Windows a few years ago.  I suspect that was 
a harmless plant designed to keep people from looking at something else. 
  If it were actually a problem, one of the spooks would have been 
cleverer--like maybe have it called _DEBUGR and have it actually do 
something related to debugging when the spooks aren't using it.

Long ago, I read an article from a VAX.VMS admin who said he was looking 
at a script he planned to use and saw a variable being used as a command 
without any comments.  Trying to figure out what the value might be, he 
saw that all through the script strings were being placed in different 
variables and being used for legitimate functions, but at the same time, 
some of them were concatenated into this variable until
its value was something like

   DELETE [*]*.*

(I don't remember VMS JCL very well, but it was the equivalent of

   cd /; rm -rf *

and it was a script alleged to make some admin job easier.


Social engineering isn't new.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Nutrition for Blokes: Re-engineering your diet for life
   http://www.phlaunt.com/quentin

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web