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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70801 > unrolled thread

CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices'

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

Contents

  CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-10 17:48 +0000
    Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-10 16:57 -0700
      Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-10 18:07 -0700
        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-03-10 18:26 -0700
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-10 18:31 -0700
            Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-03-10 21:41 -0700
              Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-12 01:54 -0400
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-03-12 06:49 -0700
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-12 08:43 -0700
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-12 19:03 -0400
            Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-12 13:22 -0700
              Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-12 22:30 +0000
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-12 23:04 +0000
                  Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-13 01:28 +0000
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-13 01:28 +0000
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-13 01:56 +0000
                  Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 02:12 +0000
                    Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-03-12 20:14 -0700
                      Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-13 00:30 -0400
                        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-13 09:11 -0400
                        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 14:00 +0000
                          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-13 16:17 -0400
                            Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 21:06 +0000
                              Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-14 14:02 -0400
                                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-14 19:48 +0000
                                  Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-14 17:02 -0400
        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-03-10 21:12 -0700
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-16 08:44 -0700
    Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-12 19:49 -0500
      Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 01:14 +0000
        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Leonard Oglesby <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-12 21:49 -0700
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-13 01:58 -0400
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 14:02 +0000
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-13 18:43 -0500
      Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-13 08:14 +0100
        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 14:03 +0000
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-13 07:27 -0700
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-13 15:55 +0100
            Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 15:11 +0000
              Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-14 12:38 +0100
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-14 12:46 +0000
                  Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-03-14 23:01 -0700
                    Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-03-16 08:53 -0700
                Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-14 16:01 +0000
            Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-13 12:20 -0400
              Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-13 16:36 +0000
        Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-13 17:25 +0000
          Re: CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices' tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-16 12:36 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#70801 — CIA 'tried to crack security of Apple devices'

Fuckers.

<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/10/cia-tried-to-crack-security-of-apple-devices>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70837

On 10 Mar 2015 17:48:41 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Fuckers.
> 
> <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/10/cia-tried-to-crack-security-of-apple-devies>

Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
software is endless. Hardware as well.

Most smart people knew/know that crypto hardware was and still is
compromised.

Some of the backdoors are getting closed nowadays but it's just
like closing the barn door when the horse is already running


yeah the TLA tried and failed, nothing to see here, move along






 





 

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

#70843

In article <mdo0mj$od8$1@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
<electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2015 17:48:41 GMT
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Fuckers.
> > 
> >
> > <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/10/cia-tried-to-crack-securi
> > ty-of-apple-devies>
> 
> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
> software is endless. Hardware as well.

They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
anyone else, can find.

> Most smart people knew/know that crypto hardware was and still is
> compromised.

Thus far, not these Apple devices.

> Some of the backdoors are getting closed nowadays but it's just
> like closing the barn door when the horse is already running

Can't close something that wasn't there to be opened in the first place.

> yeah the TLA tried and failed, nothing to see here, move along

That failure is plenty enough to see.

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

#70844

In article <100320151807038081%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <mdo0mj$od8$1@dont-email.me>, Electric Comet
> <electric-comet@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > On 10 Mar 2015 17:48:41 GMT
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Fuckers.
> > > 
> > >
> > > <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/10/cia-tried-to-crack-secu
> > > ri
> > > ty-of-apple-devies>
> > 
> > Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
> > software is endless. Hardware as well.
> 
> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
> anyone else, can find.

That anyone will ADMIT to finding...

Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security 
of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement 
saying they've done so. They'll sit back and quietly harvest as much 
data using that channel as they possibly can. If/when the fact that 
they've cracked it is discovered, they'll either deny it ("Wuddaya mean? 
OF COURSE it's secure! We'd LOVE to be able to snoop that device, but 
nobody has figured out how!") until such denial is totally unbelievable 
by any but the dumbest, or claim that they only managed to do it "day 
before yesterday - we're tooling up to put it to use, but haven't got 
there yet".  

> 
> > Most smart people knew/know that crypto hardware was and still is
> > compromised.
> 
> Thus far, not these Apple devices.

So far as anyone will admit...

> 
> > Some of the backdoors are getting closed nowadays but it's just
> > like closing the barn door when the horse is already running
> 
> Can't close something that wasn't there to be opened in the first place.

Or if nobody is claiming that it's open, so nobody notices...

> 
> > yeah the TLA tried and failed, nothing to see here, move along
> 
> That failure is plenty enough to see.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

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

#70845

On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:

>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>> 
>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>> anyone else, can find.
> 
> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
> 
> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
> saying they've done so.

Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker, 
they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what 
Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can. 

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

#70856

In article <2015031018314016038-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
> 
> >>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
> >>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
> >> 
> >> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
> >> anyone else, can find.
> > 
> > That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
> > 
> > Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
> > of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
> > saying they've done so.
> 
> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker, 
> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what 
> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can. 

Which is exactly the reason I specified TLAs. They'll treat it as a 
secret so high I can't even come up with a decent metaphor. And use it 
for all it's worth for as long as they can get away with it.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

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

#70923

Don Bruder:
> Which is exactly the reason I specified TLAs. They'll treat it as a 
> secret so high I can't even come up with a decent metaphor. And use it 
> for all it's worth for as long as they can get away with it.

If you're a U.S. citizen they are doing this in accordance with your
laws. It's not aimed at you; it's aimed at terrorists. But if you still
don't like it, tell your Congress to stop it.

-- 
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]

#70929

In article <120320150154410234%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Don Bruder:
> > Which is exactly the reason I specified TLAs. They'll treat it as a 
> > secret so high I can't even come up with a decent metaphor. And use it 
> > for all it's worth for as long as they can get away with it.
> 
> If you're a U.S. citizen they are doing this in accordance with your
> laws. 

Laws I oppose, but the rest of the sheeple seem to be thrilled with.

> It's not aimed at you; it's aimed at terrorists. 

For values of "terrorists" equal to "Anybody and everybody we can figure 
out a way to eavesdrop on, whether it's right, wrong, legal, illegal, or 
otherwise"

> But if you still don't like it, tell your Congress to stop it.

I wish it actually worked that way... <sigh>

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

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

#70930

On 2015-03-12 05:54:41 +0000, Davoud said:

> Don Bruder:
>> Which is exactly the reason I specified TLAs. They'll treat it as a
>> secret so high I can't even come up with a decent metaphor. And use it
>> for all it's worth for as long as they can get away with it.
> 
> If you're a U.S. citizen they are doing this in accordance with your
> laws. It's not aimed at you; it's aimed at terrorists. But if you still
> don't like it, tell your Congress to stop it.

Tell your local industries to tell Congress, if you want it heard.

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

#70937

On 2015-03-12 01:54, Davoud wrote:

> But if you still
> don't like it, tell your Congress to stop it.

ROFLMAO.

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

#70934

On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>
>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>
>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>> anyone else, can find.
>>
>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>
>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>> saying they've done so.
>
> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.

Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.

-- 
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if 
they are genuine."
   - Abraham Lincoln

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

#70936

On 2015-03-12, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> wrote:
> On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
>> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>>
>>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>>
>>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>>> anyone else, can find.
>>>
>>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>>
>>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>>> saying they've done so.
>>
>> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
>> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
>> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.
>
> Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
> years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
> patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.

Really? What evidence do you have to back up this belief?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#70938

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
> On 2015-03-12, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>>>
>>>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>>>> anyone else, can find.
>>>>
>>>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>>>
>>>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>>>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>>>> saying they've done so.
>>>
>>> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
>>> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
>>> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.
>>
>> Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
>> years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
>> patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.

> Really? What evidence do you have to back up this belief?

The voices he hears when he removes the tinfoil.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

And now, the rest of the story

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

#70945

On 2015-03-12, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
>> On 2015-03-12, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
>>>> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>>>>> anyone else, can find.
>>>>>
>>>>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>>>>
>>>>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>>>>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>>>>> saying they've done so.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
>>>> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
>>>> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.
>>>
>>> Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
>>> years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
>>> patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.
>
>> Really? What evidence do you have to back up this belief?
>
> The voices he hears when he removes the tinfoil.
>

Psh.. like I have to *remove* tinfoil... 

-- 
I'm into SOFTWARE!

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

#70944

On 2015-03-12, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-12, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>>>
>>>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>>>> anyone else, can find.
>>>>
>>>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>>>
>>>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>>>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>>>> saying they've done so.
>>>
>>> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
>>> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
>>> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.
>>
>> Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
>> years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
>> patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.
>
> Really? What evidence do you have to back up this belief?
>

None... I have friends in low places... ;)


-- 
Bower's Law:
	Talent goes where the action is.

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

#70946

On 2015-03-12, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-12, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/15 6:31 PM, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-11 01:26:34 +0000, Don Bruder said:
>>>
>>>>>> Why would they need to crack it or anything else? The backdoors in
>>>>>> software is endless. Hardware as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> They tried to crack it because there aren't any backdoors that they, or
>>>>> anyone else, can find.
>>>>
>>>> That anyone will ADMIT to finding...
>>>>
>>>> Bet on this: If/when one of the TLAs does manage to crack the security
>>>> of <insert device of your choosing> they *WILL NOT* make an announcement
>>>> saying they've done so.
>>>
>>> Depends on who it is.  If it's the garden variety young adult hacker,
>>> they'll tell everybody with eyes.  The CIA or KGB (I don't care what
>>> Putin calls it this week), they'll sit on it for as long as they can.
>>
>> Agreed.. I firmly believe NSA and CIA had known about Shellshock for 
>> years and were probably actively using it.  The only reason a "security 
>> patch" came out was because people outside the government figured it out.
>
> Really? What evidence do you have to back up this belief?
>

Perhaps I should better say "maybe I'm just being overly paranoid, but given
that the NSA tried to crack the iPhone for their own ends it would not surprise
me that they had known about Shellshock and used it for years to their own
ends".

How's that?

-- 
I'm not proud.

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

#70947

On 2015-03-13, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should better say "maybe I'm just being overly paranoid, but given
> that the NSA tried to crack the iPhone for their own ends it would not surprise
> me that they had known about Shellshock and used it for years to their own
> ends".
>
> How's that?

That seems reasonable, and it wouldn't surprise me either. I just
haven't seen any evidence of it ...yet? : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#70949

In article <cmevbvFbba8U8@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-13, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I should better say "maybe I'm just being overly paranoid, but 
> > given
> > that the NSA tried to crack the iPhone for their own ends it would not 
> > surprise
> > me that they had known about Shellshock and used it for years to their own
> > ends".
> >
> > How's that?
> 
> That seems reasonable, and it wouldn't surprise me either. I just
> haven't seen any evidence of it ...yet? : )

And if they have/when they do, you won't see any - you can bet the farm 
that they'll keep the fact that they've done so secret for as long as 
they can figure out a way to put it to use. Whether that use will be 
bane or benefit is an open question, but the driving mindset is quite 
clear and simple: "Use *ANY* means possible to maximum effect". 

This ... Um... Debate? has been going on since the "Clipper" proposal 
and the advent of strong (Uh... well, everybody that's actually saying 
anything about it seems to consider it reasonably strong) crypto in the 
hands of the masses. It's unlikely that we (meaning "John Q. Public") 
will ever know for sure one way or the other. The prudent assumption is 
that, however strong it may be claimed to be, there's a hole in whatever 
cryptosystem happens to be under discussion. The further prudent 
assumption is that the TLAs *PROBABLY* know about and are (or have plans 
for) exploiting that hole - assuming it isn't purely imaginary.

Unfortunately, there's no way to *REALLY* know if such a hole exists, in 
whatever cryptosystem is being discussed, or if it does, if it's been 
discovered (or perhaps even installed...) by the TLAs. Anybody who 
thinks the TLAs would admit they know of such a hole is a fool. Anybody 
who thinks they wouldn't exploit it if they could is even more a fool. 
But since it's all we've got at the moment, you either have to trust it 
(however reluctantly) or leave your secrets "in the clear".

Either that, or build a new tinfoil hat and hope for the best...

And never, ever forget: Shiny side *OUT* :)

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

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

#70950

Don Bruder:
> Unfortunately, there's no way to *REALLY* know if such a hole exists, in 
> whatever cryptosystem is being discussed, or if it does, if it's been 
> discovered (or perhaps even installed...) by the TLAs. Anybody who 
> thinks the TLAs would admit they know of such a hole is a fool. Anybody 
> who thinks they wouldn't exploit it if they could is even more a fool. 
> But since it's all we've got at the moment, you either have to trust it 
> (however reluctantly) or leave your secrets "in the clear".

> Either that, or build a new tinfoil hat and hope for the best...

The Intelligence Community (IC) does what is required of it by law. For
an agency to admit this or that would be a violation of the espionage
laws. Not going to happen.

I don't know why it is so difficult for people to understand that the
NSA is not looking for, or reading, the communications of the average
American or ally. SIGINT collection and processing are incredibly labor
intensive, and there are never enough people, especially those skilled
in the hard languages, to cover the legitimate targets. Anyone who
thinks they have the time, the inclination, or the mandate to entertain
themselves with John Q. Public's personal communications is delusional
and really does need that tinfoil hat.

I would sincerely hope that there are no publicly available cipher
systems that the IC cannot read. That would do nothing to protect the
average citizen because the average citizen does not need such
protection, but it would be a boon to the enemies of civilization.

-- 
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]

#70960

In article <130320150030082767%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

>  don't know why it is so difficult for people to understand that the
> NSA is not looking for, or reading, the communications of the average
> American or ally. SIGINT collection and processing are incredibly labor
> intensive, and there are never enough people, especially those skilled
> in the hard languages, to cover the legitimate targets. Anyone who
> thinks they have the time, the inclination, or the mandate to entertain
> themselves with John Q. Public's personal communications is delusional
> and really does need that tinfoil hat.

I think in Little Murders (Jules Feiffer) there's a scene where the FBI 
is intercepting a character's mail, and so the character starts writing 
letters to the FBI agent who's reading the mail, calling him a scumbag 
and disparaging his choice of career and impugning his morals and 
eventually the FBI agent commits suicide.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web