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 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qjav1b5cs3p9r9jk101cjjl4l98kos17lv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >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. Try to feed me shit, BOY, and you will get a plate full of it right back in your face!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1ujv1b5k9dt31blj1p4cgu7ei27hje6pu3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32944 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:31:03 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >Gave us: > >>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. > > Try to feed me shit, BOY, and you will get a plate full of it right >back in your face! ...and that's the real AlwaysWrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvpad7$ksp$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32944 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> > Gave us: > >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. > Try to feed me shit, BOY, and you will get a plate full of it right > back in your face! Plonk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 21:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c6k02btp3nj179e95evc2p099dfoet8opq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32975 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:47:03 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> Gave us: > >> >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. > >> Try to feed me shit, BOY, and you will get a plate full of it right >> back in your face! > >Plonk Oh boy! Yet another Usenet idiot who thinks his filter file edit sessions need to be announced or carry some importance such that he needs to announce them. Your plonk filter file edit session announcement post was even more retarded and immature than your unsolicited, unqualified, unprofessional assessment post was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JW <none@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 06:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jej12b5u2gcmcpngsfu8iknlbsk3cpn0j8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32944 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:31:03 -0400 DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in Message id: <qjav1b5cs3p9r9jk101cjjl4l98kos17lv@4ax.com>: >On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >Gave us: > >>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. > > Try to feed me shit, BOY, and you will get a plate full of it right >back in your face! Dunno about a plate full, but certainly a 3-fer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <asjv1b17iosuk0jih6jei356sta9g1oaqo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >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. ...and everyone else on SED. > >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. > This advice hasn't worked for a couple of decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2jjv1b5i2s0jqht4c842lc3o40c166kl3k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32937 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >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. Utter nonsense. I've been very consistent but apparently you simply can't get a simple idea through your thick skull. If prior knowledge of the *KEY* is used, it is not a "brute force" search. It is an intelligent search. The proposition that it's "brute force" if the entire key space is searched (until the key is found) is simply silly. Doing anything other will leave potential keys untested. >> > <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 16:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <np202btiev728re03aumtvhvc3fuuqcnp5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32948 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:07:31 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: > you simply >can't get a simple idea through your thick skull. You retards call me a troll, and I have been telling you for years that this krw dumbfuck is about as dishonorable as it gets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvpajq$ksp$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32948 |
In sci.crypt krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > >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. > Utter nonsense. I've been very consistent but apparently you simply > can't get a simple idea through your thick skull. If prior knowledge > of the *KEY* is used, it is not a "brute force" search. It is an > intelligent search. The proposition that it's "brute force" if the > entire key space is searched (until the key is found) is simply silly. > Doing anything other will leave potential keys untested. Plonk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cbjv1b195cr80qf8tkq5n863utrtaatvmd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32931 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:51:39 +0100, 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. As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not the same as having knowledge of the key. > >> <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. He certainly didn't show it here. He blindly asserted what *I* believe and then used those assumptions to trash me. That's really stupid. > >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. No, I haven't been wrong. Disagree with your premise but not wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvoj5i$ngp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32947 |
On 15/10/15 17:02, krw wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:51:39 +0100, 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. > > As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not > the same as having knowledge of the key. That's certainly true, but nobody here has even mentioned having knowledge of the key, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you think so. >>> <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. > > He certainly didn't show it here. He blindly asserted what *I* > believe and then used those assumptions to trash me. That's really > stupid. Rich thinks that you think that, if you have any information about the key and use that information to direct your exhaustive search, it no longer counts as brute force. Are you now saying you don't think that? <snip> -- 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 | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c0mv1b1pku2j98696h2jaf699jl3r371ki@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32951 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:12:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 15/10/15 17:02, krw wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:51:39 +0100, 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. >> >> As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not >> the same as having knowledge of the key. > >That's certainly true, but nobody here has even mentioned having >knowledge of the key, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. Huh? The whole idea behind an intelligent attack is that you have some knowledge of the key. > >A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every >possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument >appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some >particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you >think so. Close. I'm saying that by using some knowledge of the key, that you design your exhaustive attack to reduce the time to find the key, it's no longer a "brute force" attack. Otherwise the term has no meaning. All exhaustive searches become "brute force" and indeed all searches become "brute force" (assuming that you will continue until the key is found). >>>> <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. >> >> He certainly didn't show it here. He blindly asserted what *I* >> believe and then used those assumptions to trash me. That's really >> stupid. > >Rich thinks that you think that, if you have any information about the >key and use that information to direct your exhaustive search, it no >longer counts as brute force. Are you now saying you don't think that? No, that wasn't what he said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 18:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvom1o$3rf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32954 |
On 15/10/15 17:50, krw wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:12:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 15/10/15 17:02, krw wrote: <snip> >>> >>> As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not >>> the same as having knowledge of the key. >> >> That's certainly true, but nobody here has even mentioned having >> knowledge of the key, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. > > Huh? The whole idea behind an intelligent attack is that you have > some knowledge of the key. Okay, you wrote "knowledge" but meant "some knowledge". Sometimes we phrase things in a way that we think is clear but which nevertheless leads to ambiguity and misunderstanding. I know that, because it happens to me occasionally. Yes, having /some/ knowledge of the key (for example, video evidence suggests that the first digit of a PIN might be on the 7/8/9 row) can help to direct an attack. At this point, we seem to have reduced the argument to one about terminology. I define "brute force" as "exhaustive search", and you define it as "exhaustive search where no information about the key is used to organise the order of the search". Thus, we are no longer arguing about facts but about definitions, and of course such arguments can never be resolved except by recourse to a mutually accepted authority. As far as I'm aware, no such authority exists in this case, so we're at an impasse that will not be resolved by further discussion. -- 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 | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bve02b1osh4rhl4pm7vs119n7k7ujnb9eg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32955 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:01:41 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 15/10/15 17:50, krw wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:12:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield >> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 15/10/15 17:02, krw wrote: ><snip> >>>> >>>> As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not >>>> the same as having knowledge of the key. >>> >>> That's certainly true, but nobody here has even mentioned having >>> knowledge of the key, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. >> >> Huh? The whole idea behind an intelligent attack is that you have >> some knowledge of the key. > >Okay, you wrote "knowledge" but meant "some knowledge". Sometimes we >phrase things in a way that we think is clear but which nevertheless >leads to ambiguity and misunderstanding. I know that, because it happens >to me occasionally. Of course I didn't mean you knew the key. Once you know the key, *any* search is pretty silly, no? >Yes, having /some/ knowledge of the key (for example, video evidence >suggests that the first digit of a PIN might be on the 7/8/9 row) can >help to direct an attack. Or you suspect that the user uses the form Ulllllln, or similar. > >At this point, we seem to have reduced the argument to one about >terminology. I define "brute force" as "exhaustive search", and you >define it as "exhaustive search where no information about the key is >used to organise the order of the search". We agree. ;-) That's been my position all along. Further, I propose that the term "exhaustive search" is meaningless since to have a 100% probability of finding the key you have to exhaust the key space (counter example?). The question is how you get there. Do you use information about the (specific or generic) user or not. > >Thus, we are no longer arguing about facts but about definitions, and of >course such arguments can never be resolved except by recourse to a >mutually accepted authority. As far as I'm aware, no such authority >exists in this case, so we're at an impasse that will not be resolved by >further discussion. Sure, it's always been about definitions. I propose that yours is a meaningless definition, though (see above). However, it appears Schneier disagrees with me (though I don't understand his reasoning - other than by definition). He's about as authoritative as there is. I still don't believe it's a useful definition, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 02:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <z_SdnbCfq9wt273LnZ2dnUU78U-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #32980 |
On 16/10/2015 02:06, krw wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:01:41 +0100, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 15/10/15 17:50, krw wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:12:31 +0100, Richard Heathfield >>> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/10/15 17:02, krw wrote: >> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> As I've already explained, having knowledge of the key space is not >>>>> the same as having knowledge of the key. >>>> >>>> That's certainly true, but nobody here has even mentioned having >>>> knowledge of the key, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. >>> >>> Huh? The whole idea behind an intelligent attack is that you have >>> some knowledge of the key. >> >> Okay, you wrote "knowledge" but meant "some knowledge". Sometimes we >> phrase things in a way that we think is clear but which nevertheless >> leads to ambiguity and misunderstanding. I know that, because it happens >> to me occasionally. > > Of course I didn't mean you knew the key. Once you know the key, > *any* search is pretty silly, no? > >> Yes, having /some/ knowledge of the key (for example, video evidence >> suggests that the first digit of a PIN might be on the 7/8/9 row) can >> help to direct an attack. > > Or you suspect that the user uses the form Ulllllln, or similar. >> >> At this point, we seem to have reduced the argument to one about >> terminology. I define "brute force" as "exhaustive search", and you >> define it as "exhaustive search where no information about the key is >> used to organise the order of the search". > > We agree. ;-) That's been my position all along. > > Further, I propose that the term "exhaustive search" is meaningless > since to have a 100% probability of finding the key you have to > exhaust the key space (counter example?). The question is how you get > there. Do you use information about the (specific or generic) user or > not. >> >> Thus, we are no longer arguing about facts but about definitions, and of >> course such arguments can never be resolved except by recourse to a >> mutually accepted authority. As far as I'm aware, no such authority >> exists in this case, so we're at an impasse that will not be resolved by >> further discussion. > > Sure, it's always been about definitions. I propose that yours is a > meaningless definition, though (see above). > > However, it appears Schneier disagrees with me (though I don't > understand his reasoning - other than by definition). He's about as > authoritative as there is. I still don't believe it's a useful > definition, though. > Here is a comparison: Trying to break into a house by simply hammering in one place on the door with your hands is pretty silly and would qualify as "brute force" in normal use of those words. Trying to break into a house by hammering on the door with your hands in a specific place where you reasonably suspect the door to be the weakest is no longer brute force but a pretty clever trick. However to someone not knowing why you are hammering on the door like that, there is no way of telling why you are doing it, and when the door gives way, they still have no way of knowing if it was clever, extreme muscle power or dumb luck. However to the person who owns the house, the difference is pretty important when deciding how urgently they should try to reinforce that weak spot on the door. Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 07:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a4877$5627236d$d47876e2$42846@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #32984 |
So what you are saying is: "Dumb search" vs "Smart search" Makes sense to me. I do wonder if it makes sense to the "brute force" crowd ! LOL. Bye, Skybuck =D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 14:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvopok$j5s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32951 |
On 10/15/2015 12:12 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every > possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument > appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some > particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you > think so. No, he's arguing that it's no longer brute force. His definition of "brute force" does not equate to "exhaustive" - yours does. His definition is based on the traditional opposition of "brute" versus "intelligent"; if a search uses intelligence by checking the most likely passwords first, it's an intelligent search, not a brute force search, but if it keeps going until it has exhausted all possibilities, then it is also an exhaustive search. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvoq2t$k11$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32956 |
On 15/10/15 19:05, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/15/2015 12:12 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... >> A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every >> possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument >> appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some >> particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you >> think so. > > No, he's arguing that it's no longer brute force. Yes, I've worked that one out. :-) It's an argument about definitions. With no standard to which to refer, there is no way to resolve the argument, and no point in trying. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 14:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvos69$t04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32957 |
On 10/15/2015 02:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 15/10/15 19:05, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 12:12 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> ... >>> A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every >>> possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument >>> appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some >>> particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you >>> think so. >> >> No, he's arguing that it's no longer brute force. > > Yes, I've worked that one out. :-) > > It's an argument about definitions. With no standard to which to refer, > there is no way to resolve the argument, and no point in trying. I did a quick online search for dictionary definitions of "brute-force", and they all matched your definition; similarly, "dictionary attack" is always defined in terms of using a dictionary enormously smaller than the complete list of possible passwords. However, I couldn't find any mention anywhere of the correct way to describe a an algorithm that exhaustively checks every single possible password, but does so strictly in decreasing order of the likelihood of that password being chosen. Every definition I found seemed to assume that the brute force attack selected it's password guesses either in alphabetical order, or in a random order - not one mentioned the possibility of using an intelligently selected order of guessing. The first N guesses of such an algorithm are indistiguishable from the first N guesses of a dictionary attack where the dictionary contains the N passwords most likely to be chosen. It therefore has every advantage that such an attack could provide - yet it also has the advantage of guaranteed success if allowed to run long enough, which the dictionary attack cannot provide. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvoul2$7r9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32957 |
On 15/10/15 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 15/10/15 19:05, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 12:12 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> ... >>> A brute force search is an exhaustive search - one that tries every >>> possibility until a possibility that works is found. Your argument >>> appears to be that, if that exhaustive search is ordered in some >>> particular way, it is no longer exhaustive. I don't understand why you >>> think so. >> >> No, he's arguing that it's no longer brute force. > > Yes, I've worked that one out. :-) > > It's an argument about definitions. With no standard to which to refer, > there is no way to resolve the argument, and no point in trying. > I can't comprehend why you have been bothering so long with this discussion. Perhaps you have never been in sci.electronics.design, but you are arguing with a couple of its most unpleasant regulars - people with very little knowledge about anything, but a great deal of strong (and strongly worded) opinions on everything and everyone. It's a complete waste of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web