Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.crypt > #32711 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-21 09:36 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 281 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.crypt
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 13:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-11 19:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-11 14:42 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-11 20:47 +0100
Password restrictions [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 13:30 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 16:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-11 21:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 17:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 18:45 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 18:03 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 19:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 21:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 20:07 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-16 09:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 11:59 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-16 18:21 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:50 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 17:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 01:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:53 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 16:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 14:32 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 18:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-20 16:35 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-11 20:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 21:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-12 01:08 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:59 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 23:08 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 04:41 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 00:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:37 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 05:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 06:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:44 +0100
Strength from generation restrictions [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:23 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:47 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 03:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:14 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-12 12:08 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:25 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-13 23:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:16 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 23:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:44 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 07:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-16 08:27 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 10:13 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2015-10-13 11:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-13 08:45 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:47 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:56 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 00:52 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-12 20:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 00:44 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 11:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:27 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 01:45 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 21:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-15 01:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:51 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 12:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 13:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 14:35 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:44 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:47 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. JW <none@dev.null> - 2015-10-16 06:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 17:12 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 20:06 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com> - 2015-10-16 02:37 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:32 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 19:10 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-15 21:28 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-16 00:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 20:35 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 09:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 21:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 13:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 04:49 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-13 22:39 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:40 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 15:01 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:42 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:32 -0400
Exhaustive searches, brutish and otherwise [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 01:19 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:48 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 18:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 15:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:17 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 21:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-13 22:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:00 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:19 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:29 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:38 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-13 22:54 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 04:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:44 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:11 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:48 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 13:24 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:23 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:36 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 02:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:52 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 07:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:58 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:02 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 12:19 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 17:17 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 22:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:48 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:52 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2015-10-12 16:50 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:33 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-12 21:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 21:43 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-13 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 07:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 07:28 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 10:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:51 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:55 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 19:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:57 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:02 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 22:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:37 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 12:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Brian Gladman <blindanagram@nowhere.net> - 2015-10-12 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:06 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:54 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:24 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. gordonb.wak65@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-12 20:47 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 16:31 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 15:55 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-16 17:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-17 01:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-17 12:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 19:32 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 11:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 12:42 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. gordonb.ll6qm@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-21 18:36 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200
Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 00:34 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 11:55 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 00:35 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 06:47 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Neon John <no@never.com> - 2015-10-18 13:25 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:39 -0700
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 15:33 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 18:37 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:54 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-12 05:52 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:35 -0400
Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:07 -0500
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:16 +0200
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] David Malone <dwmalone@walton.maths.tcd.ie> - 2015-10-21 15:54 +0000
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 11:57 -0400
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2015-10-21 11:17 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-12 09:56 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:47 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:17 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:36 +0200
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 20:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <h68r1b569jbqf39vnc76s8l260m0q91aul@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32827 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > >>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>> keys are tried. >> >> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >> muscle. > >It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). Surely, but that's not "brute force". >If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >and work up. OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkc43$mak$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32851 |
On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >> >>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>> keys are tried. >>> >>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>> muscle. >> >>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). > > Surely, but that's not "brute force". > >>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>and work up. > > OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still > dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even > if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". > Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 21:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <njdr1b5kv13g4oju19p7odl7kkp5gstn0k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32856 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:45:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>> >>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>>> keys are tried. >>>> >>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>>> muscle. >>> >>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >> >> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >> >>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>>and work up. >> >> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >> > >Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. Others don't speak English. You definition makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkdop$og1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32857 |
In sci.crypt krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:45:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > >On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> > >>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > >>> > >>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the > >>>>> keys are tried. > >>>> > >>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure > >>>> muscle. > >>> > >>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I > >>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). > >> > >> Surely, but that's not "brute force". > >> > >>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be > >>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 > >>>and work up. > >> > >> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still > >> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even > >> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". > >> > > > >Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. > >Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > Others don't speak English. You definition makes no sense. No, it is your definition that does not make sense. Go reread Richard H.'s posting where he showed that by using your definition the identical bit of code was both "brute force" and "not brute force" simultaneously. Hint: the identical bit of code can't be both simultaneously. Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lmst1b9660fhephtpco5d9fl0c39lk4l1h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32858 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >In sci.crypt krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:45:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > >> >On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >> >>> >> >>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >> >>>>> keys are tried. >> >>>> >> >>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >> >>>> muscle. >> >>> >> >>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >> >>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >> >> >> >> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >> >> >> >>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >> >>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >> >>>and work up. >> >> >> >> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >> >> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >> >> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >> >> >> > >> >Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >> >Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > >> Others don't speak English. You definition makes no sense. > >No, it is your definition that does not make sense. Go reread Richard >H.'s posting where he showed that by using your definition the >identical bit of code was both "brute force" and "not brute force" >simultaneously. Yeah, and I can prove 1=2, also. >Hint: the identical bit of code can't be both simultaneously. > >Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 01:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvmssp$f0c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32896 |
On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > wrote: >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. > > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for or any idea of more likely possibilities. So according to you that counts as brute force. But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific restrictions.) If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 01:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvmtsu$gid$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32902 |
In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > > wrote: > >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. > > > > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the > > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. > If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice > versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for > or any idea of more likely possibilities. > So according to you that counts as brute force. > But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a > PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean > they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search > for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any > length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. > (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific > restrictions.) > If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. That is exactly what krw is saying. By his definition, if you have no knowledge of the "pin" (to use this example), both of these are "brute force" for pin from 0000 to 9999 do check-pin(pin); for pin from 9999 to 0000 do check-pin(pin); But, also by his definition, if you use knowledge to decide that the users pin likely begins with a 7, 8, or 9, and therefore choose to run your loop this way: for pin from 9999 to 0000 do check-pin(pin); Then this same, identical, loop, which *was brute force* prior to the knowledge addition is now, somehow, magically no longer brute force. His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when no knowledge is used to choose that direction, and simultaneough be not brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to 0000.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 21:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qfvt1bpacvv64qqndbsicagpipt1tt7o0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32905 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> > wrote: > >> >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. >> > >> > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the >> > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. > >> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice >> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for >> or any idea of more likely possibilities. > >> So according to you that counts as brute force. > >> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a >> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean >> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search >> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any >> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. > >> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific >> restrictions.) > >> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. > >That is exactly what krw is saying. > >By his definition, if you have no knowledge of the "pin" (to use this >example), both of these are "brute force" > >for pin from 0000 to 9999 do > check-pin(pin); > >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do > check-pin(pin); > >But, also by his definition, if you use knowledge to decide that the >users pin likely begins with a 7, 8, or 9, and therefore choose to run >your loop this way: > >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do > check-pin(pin); > >Then this same, identical, loop, which *was brute force* prior to the >knowledge addition is now, somehow, magically no longer brute force. >His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. >Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when >no knowledge is used to choose that direction, and simultaneough be not >brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to >0000. > Brute force is "try 'em all". It matters not whether discounting particulars based on known elements have been included to reduce the set. The final engine put into place still utilizes the brute force methodology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvmuus$jdc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32909 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > Gave us: > >In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: > >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > >> > wrote: > > > >> >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. > >> > > >> > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the > >> > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. > > > >> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice > >> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for > >> or any idea of more likely possibilities. > > > >> So according to you that counts as brute force. > > > >> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a > >> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean > >> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search > >> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any > >> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. > > > >> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific > >> restrictions.) > > > >> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. > > > >That is exactly what krw is saying. > > > >By his definition, if you have no knowledge of the "pin" (to use this > >example), both of these are "brute force" > > > >for pin from 0000 to 9999 do > > check-pin(pin); > > > >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do > > check-pin(pin); > > > >But, also by his definition, if you use knowledge to decide that the > >users pin likely begins with a 7, 8, or 9, and therefore choose to run > >your loop this way: > > > >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do > > check-pin(pin); > > > >Then this same, identical, loop, which *was brute force* prior to the > >knowledge addition is now, somehow, magically no longer brute force. > >His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. > >Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when > >no knowledge is used to choose that direction, and simultaneough be not > >brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to > >0000. > > > Brute force is "try 'em all". It matters not whether discounting > particulars based on known elements have been included to reduce the > set. The final engine put into place still utilizes the brute force > methodology. Correct - and this is the very point that krw fails to fathom. Tossing out ranges of keys using knowledge that the key (or pin) could not possibly be one of the ones tossed out, does not make the final loop any less brute force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 22:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pc2u1bl106hhvj2lblggppl79ub40dfo3s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32910 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:19:24 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> Gave us: > >> >In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. >> >> > >> >> > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the >> >> > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. >> > >> >> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice >> >> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for >> >> or any idea of more likely possibilities. >> > >> >> So according to you that counts as brute force. >> > >> >> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a >> >> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean >> >> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search >> >> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any >> >> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. >> > >> >> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific >> >> restrictions.) >> > >> >> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. >> > >> >That is exactly what krw is saying. >> > >> >By his definition, if you have no knowledge of the "pin" (to use this >> >example), both of these are "brute force" >> > >> >for pin from 0000 to 9999 do >> > check-pin(pin); >> > >> >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do >> > check-pin(pin); >> > >> >But, also by his definition, if you use knowledge to decide that the >> >users pin likely begins with a 7, 8, or 9, and therefore choose to run >> >your loop this way: >> > >> >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do >> > check-pin(pin); >> > >> >Then this same, identical, loop, which *was brute force* prior to the >> >knowledge addition is now, somehow, magically no longer brute force. >> >His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. >> >Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when >> >no knowledge is used to choose that direction, and simultaneough be not >> >brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to >> >0000. >> > > >> Brute force is "try 'em all". It matters not whether discounting >> particulars based on known elements have been included to reduce the >> set. The final engine put into place still utilizes the brute force >> methodology. > >Correct - and this is the very point that krw fails to fathom. Tossing >out ranges of keys using knowledge that the key (or pin) could not >possibly be one of the ones tossed out, does not make the final loop >any less brute force. Perhaps calling it "intelligently managed brute force method" would help, but not in his case, since the term intelligence has been introduced. That decidedly rules out KRW - Kreep (who) Rejects Wisdom. And yes, the asshole does deserve that since he has spent the last two decades denigrating me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 22:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1b3u1bdolfvu43sgklpjp25tjbiij0ogel@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32912 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:07:10 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:19:24 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >Gave us: > >>In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >>> Gave us: >> >>> >In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: >>> >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >>> >> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. >>> >> > >>> >> > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the >>> >> > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. >>> > >>> >> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice >>> >> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for >>> >> or any idea of more likely possibilities. >>> > >>> >> So according to you that counts as brute force. >>> > >>> >> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a >>> >> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean >>> >> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search >>> >> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any >>> >> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. >>> > >>> >> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific >>> >> restrictions.) >>> > >>> >> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. >>> > >>> >That is exactly what krw is saying. >>> > >>> >By his definition, if you have no knowledge of the "pin" (to use this >>> >example), both of these are "brute force" >>> > >>> >for pin from 0000 to 9999 do >>> > check-pin(pin); >>> > >>> >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do >>> > check-pin(pin); >>> > >>> >But, also by his definition, if you use knowledge to decide that the >>> >users pin likely begins with a 7, 8, or 9, and therefore choose to run >>> >your loop this way: >>> > >>> >for pin from 9999 to 0000 do >>> > check-pin(pin); >>> > >>> >Then this same, identical, loop, which *was brute force* prior to the >>> >knowledge addition is now, somehow, magically no longer brute force. >>> >His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. >>> >Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when >>> >no knowledge is used to choose that direction, and simultaneough be not >>> >brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to >>> >0000. >>> > >> >>> Brute force is "try 'em all". It matters not whether discounting >>> particulars based on known elements have been included to reduce the >>> set. The final engine put into place still utilizes the brute force >>> methodology. >> >>Correct - and this is the very point that krw fails to fathom. Tossing >>out ranges of keys using knowledge that the key (or pin) could not >>possibly be one of the ones tossed out, does not make the final loop >>any less brute force. > > > Perhaps calling it "intelligently managed brute force method" would >help, but not in his case, since the term intelligence has been >introduced. > > That decidedly rules out KRW - Kreep (who) Rejects Wisdom. > > And yes, the asshole does deserve that since he has spent the last two >decades denigrating me. Keep it up AlwaysWrong. Perhaps some of us can disagree about definitions (which are important in communication) but you're making it perfectly clear to everyone that you're AlwaysWrong. Everyone in SED has known it for decades but now you're broadening your scope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c73u1bteop7t1crne1t9g2iian2pnem5p7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32905 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> > wrote: > >> >> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. >> > >> > Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the >> > question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. > >> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice >> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for >> or any idea of more likely possibilities. > >> So according to you that counts as brute force. > >> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a >> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean >> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search >> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any >> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. > >> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific >> restrictions.) > >> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. > >That is exactly what krw is saying. It's nice that you speak for me but do try to be correct when you do. <snipped more stupidity, unread>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo3se$p6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32914 |
On 15/10/15 03:19, krw wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > wrote: > >> In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the >>>> question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not. >> >>> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice >>> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for >>> or any idea of more likely possibilities. >> >>> So according to you that counts as brute force. >> >>> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a >>> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean >>> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search >>> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any >>> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits. >> >>> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific >>> restrictions.) >> >>> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous. >> >> That is exactly what krw is saying. > > It's nice that you speak for me but do try to be correct when you do. I'm sure he did try to be correct. I'm even sure that he /is/ correct. But if he's incorrect, point out why. > <snipped more stupidity, unread> There are some people whose writing can generally be relied upon to be stupid without our having to go to the trouble of reading it to find out. Rich is not one of those people. So far, he's been very, very right in this thread and you've been very, very wrong. Hand-waving away his writing as "stupidity" doesn't work when we know very well that he doesn't write stupid stuff. -- 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]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvo7va$6gl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32931 |
In sci.crypt Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 15/10/15 03:19, krw wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:01:19 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >>> On 15/10/2015 01:29, krw wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Therefore, your definition is the one that is wrong and makes no sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nonsense. It makes a *lot* more sense than yours. Answer the
> >>>> question; are you using prior knowledge of the possible key, or not.
> >>
> >>> If someone does a brute force search whether from 0000 to 9999 or vice
> >>> versa, they might have no prior knowledge of the PIN they're looking for
> >>> or any idea of more likely possibilities.
> >>
> >>> So according to you that counts as brute force.
> >>
> >>> But presumably they must have prior knowledge that they're looking for a
> >>> PIN, and not a password, or the answer to a puzzle. Does that now mean
> >>> they the method is not brute force? In other words, a brute force search
> >>> for a PIN will have to examine sequences of any characters or any
> >>> length, and not be allowed to look only at sequences of 4 digits.
> >>
> >>> (And a PIN can after all be considered a password with very specific
> >>> restrictions.)
> >>
> >>> If that's what you're saying, then it is ridiculous.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what krw is saying.
> >
> > It's nice that you speak for me but do try to be correct when you do.
> I'm sure he did try to be correct. I'm even sure that he /is/ correct.
> But if he's incorrect, point out why.
This is one of the tale tale sign of the internet crank
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29). Lay out
accusations, but offer no explanation for how the accusation fits the
fact pattern.
> > <snipped more stupidity, unread>
> There are some people whose writing can generally be relied upon to be
> stupid without our having to go to the trouble of reading it to find
> out. Rich is not one of those people.
> So far, he's been very, very right in this thread and you've been very,
> very wrong. Hand-waving away his writing as "stupidity" doesn't work
> when we know very well that he doesn't write stupid stuff.
However, the nature of the Crank is to perform exactly a 'hand wave'
retort of everything (among other crank methods of dismissal):
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an
unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider
to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those
commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss
all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional
beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them
impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
Seems to fit krw's writing personality to a tee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ea9v1b9g07rq5atql42le9he5fm1hp3mnk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32937 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: > "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an > unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider > to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those > commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss > all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional > beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them > impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. > >Seems to fit krw's writing personality to a tee. Damn! And here I thought you was referring to Donald Trump.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvo932$bjl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32939 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > Gave us: > > "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an > > unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries > > consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance > > with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks > > characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which > > contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational > > debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, > > evidence, and rational inference. > > > >Seems to fit krw's writing personality to a tee. > Damn! And here I thought you was referring to Donald Trump. Donald Trump is offtopic for any of comp.lang.c, sci.crypt, and sci.electronics.design. And it is easy to recognize why you continue to be 'attacked' by krw at every turn. These types of responses (this one, plus many other examples in this thread) set yourself up to become an object of ridicule such as you receive from krw. You might consider taking a good look internally at how you interact with others and making some changes if you want to be attacked less by others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gdav1blcqi1viiuk6u2p0salurd28f98km@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >Donald Trump is offtopic for any of comp.lang.c, sci.crypt, and >sci.electronics.design. And it is easy to recognize why you continue >to be 'attacked' by krw at every turn. Dude... get off your high horsey, child. It was just a fucking jovial comment. Don't act like the immature piece of shit that krw is. And I do NOT need a primer from you about Usenet. Grow the fuck up, netkkkop wannabe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo9u9$gv1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32942 |
[Newsgroups trimmed to sci.crypt only] On 15/10/15 14:29, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > Gave us: > >> Donald Trump is offtopic for any of comp.lang.c, sci.crypt, and >> sci.electronics.design. And it is easy to recognize why you continue >> to be 'attacked' by krw at every turn. > > Dude... get off your high horsey, child. It was just a fucking jovial > comment. > > Don't act like the immature piece of shit that krw is. > > And I do NOT need a primer from you about Usenet. > Grow the fuck up, netkkkop wannabe. There comes a time when the killfile is the only sensible option. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvpa9b$ksp$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32945 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > [Newsgroups trimmed to sci.crypt only] > On 15/10/15 14:29, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > > Gave us: > > > >> Donald Trump is offtopic for any of comp.lang.c, sci.crypt, and > >> sci.electronics.design. And it is easy to recognize why you > >> continue to be 'attacked' by krw at every turn. > > > > Dude... get off your high horsey, child. It was just a fucking > > jovial comment. > > > > Don't act like the immature piece of shit that krw is. > > > > And I do NOT need a primer from you about Usenet. > > Grow the fuck up, netkkkop wannabe. > There comes a time when the killfile is the only sensible option. Yep, and for those of us using real newsreaders, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno is just one keystroke away from being 'killfiled'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <chav1btrm93ohr0gdim5b5od64q1q3ai2t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: > set yourself up to become >an object of ridicule such as you receive from krw. Fuck you. You are ALSO NOT qualified to be making assessments, nor were you solicited to perform such petty horseshit in Usenet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web