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 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvpfpt$7je$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32962 |
In sci.crypt David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > 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. Which is the very reason why I have now Plonk'ed both into my killfile. Enough time wasted on their misbeliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 21:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7pk02bh4khp9fgrf0r9srrfideuj3kb062@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32982 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >Which is the very reason why I have now Plonk'ed both into my killfile. > >Enough time wasted on their misbeliefs. The holier than thou know-it-all whom actually doesn't speaks! OMG! Everyone harken to his grand utterances. Just beware because they sound distinctly as if they are emanating from his ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1bfv1chn8x.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #32905 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > 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. That's *exactly* the difference between brute force and not brute force: whether there is intelligence in deciding what order to use. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can do such a good job explaining the difference, and then conclude there's "magic" involved. There are many, many orders in which the PINs can be tried (n! of them, actually). If you use information regarding likely patterns to decide which one to use, your search is not longer brute force. The better the information, the less "brute" it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 21:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b6b7e$56200431$d47876e2$27261@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #32905 |
// classic brute force for pin from 0000 to 9999 do check-pin(pin); // less brute force 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. " The magic you are referring to is the order of events which is part of Theory of Information. Watch it on youtube ! ;) " His "knowledge" based definition creates a logical contradiction. " There is no contradiction, one is less brute force than the other, unless one knows the pin is in lower half. "Iterating pins from 9999 down to 0000 can not both be brute force when no knowledge is used to choose that direction, " You contradict yourself now, knowledge was assumed to be present. "and simultaneough be not brute force when knowledge is used to decide to run from 9999 down to 0000." That is correct... I'd call it "less brute force". Or "directed brute force". Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 22:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <933u1bpja9dhahn3oj1ks8enlvemd5cun8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32902 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:46:10 +0100, 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. Certainly. He's using no prior knowledge of the key. He's doing nothing but using force, no intelligence. > >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 Don't be ridiculous. One doesn't have to have any knowledge of the keys to have knowledge of the system. > >(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. No, you're being stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo3is$o1r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32896 |
On 15/10/15 01:29, krw wrote: > 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. But presumably you don't /believe/ that 1=2, so you know the proof is flawed and would be able either to point out the flaw yourself or to find an expert to do it for you. Kindly point out the flaw in my proof that your claim leads to a contradiction, then, or find someone who can. In the meantime, I stand by the claim. > >> 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. Is it, then, your position that it is not possible to determine whether a search is brute force or not without reference to the intent of the search's user? -- 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 09:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvo8ur$db3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32930 |
On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 15/10/15 01:29, krw wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> >> wrote: ... >>> 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. It was not "simultaneously" it was an intelligent attack when used against it's intended target, and no better than brute force when used against the wrong target. There's nothing odd about that. A cruise missile loaded with the correct terrain information for reaching it's target can select a very stealthy ground-hugging course to reach it's target. One loaded with incorrect terrain information will likely end up crashing into an obstacle it didn't know was there, somewhere along it's path; it is no better than sending an ordinary ballistic missile to a randomly chosen target. ... >>> Hint: the identical bit of code can't be both simultaneously. No, but the identical code can be an intelligent attack in the context it was intelligently designed for, and no better than brute force when misused in a context it was not designed for. I would hesitate to call such an algorithm "brute force", though - "misapplied intelligent attack" would be a more accurate description. >>> 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. > > Is it, then, your position that it is not possible to determine whether > a search is brute force or not without reference to the intent of the > search's user? It's not the intent of the user that matters: it's the relationship between the intended target and the algorithm used. If a great deal of intelligent effort has been expended to test first those passwords that are, for the intended target, significantly more likely to be chosen, then it is that intelligence that makes it not a brute force attack. If the algorithm is then used against a target where the most likely passwords are quite different, that's wasting the intelligence that went into the design of the algorithm - it's no better than brute force, though it would be more accurate to describe it as a mis-aimed intelligent attack. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkdp0$r97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32857 |
On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: .. >> >>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. Case closed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 21:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1bsi5egm5n.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #32856 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > 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. (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version is less brute than mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 00:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j2mr1b5h8bs3ggkt4gf4sf9bqhp24esdaf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32871 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> Gave us: >William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > >> 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. > >(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >is less brute than mine. Thou brute! Or is that Et Tú Brutè?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qsst1b591jd87n3thbfgvlkhsod45n0f3p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32874 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >Gave us: > >>William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >>(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>is less brute than mine. > > Thou brute! > > Or is that Et Tú Brutè? That stinks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 21:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5vt1bhspeooat6kr45u6r19mjo2857egc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32897 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: >On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno ><DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>Gave us: snip >>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>> >>>(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>is less brute than mine. >> >> Thou brute! >> >> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? > >That stinks! This isn't Denmark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo5j8$vq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32906 |
On 15/10/15 02:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>> Gave us: > snip >>>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>>> >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Thou brute! >>> >>> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? >> >> That stinks! > > This isn't Denmark. To be fair to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, that was actually quite funny. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Cf Marcellus in "Hamlet" Act I Scene IV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f59v1bpd3en6vu7411ve31p9ioel9tv09q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32935 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:20:54 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 15/10/15 02:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: >> >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >>> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>>> Gave us: >> snip >>>>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>>>> >>>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>>> is less brute than mine. >>>> >>>> Thou brute! >>>> >>>> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? >>> >>> That stinks! >> >> This isn't Denmark. > >To be fair to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, that was actually quite funny. So was my subsequent, most recent response. And this one too.... Let them eat cake. But whatever you do... do NOT vote for Donald J. Trump. He is a dishonorable criminal, and a political buffoon at best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 04:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkmsj$ice$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32871 |
On 2015-10-14, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > > (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept > that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version > is less brute than mine. Around here we have very intelligent brutes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 00:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n3or1bleo33naclv3vv7vkkinsnd2ov7e3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32876 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:49:23 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >On 2015-10-14, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >>> >>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >> >> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >> is less brute than mine. > >Around here we have very intelligent brutes. Especially those New Mexico ruffians!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnio6a9fgc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #32871 |
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
[...]
> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept
> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version
> is less brute than mine.
Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 08:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvl0pr$dqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32878 |
On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > [...] >> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >> is less brute than mine. > > Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by a process of elimination). -- 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 | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 15:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1boag1go6d.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #32880 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >> [...] >>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>> is less brute than mine. >> >> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. > > I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by > a process of elimination). Indeed that is who I meant; I've got no idea why "krw" was translated to "Keith" when typing...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7bot1btrousbunjko2op6m5p84kppj2o6s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32885 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:01:14 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> Gave us: >Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > >> On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >>> [...] >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. >> >> I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by >> a process of elimination). > >Indeed that is who I meant; I've got no idea why "krw" was translated to >"Keith" when typing... > Because that is krw's first name. Maybe you have ESP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web