You might have misread the numbers. They said 256 'bits'. 256 bits can distinguish roughly 1.1 * 10^77 states. That's a LOT. 1024 bits can distinguish roughly 1.8 * 10^308 states. I don't think there are that many atoms in the universe.
Jere
No offense taken. I've been reading slashdot way to long to have a thin skin.:)
I agree that something must have happened. The saying that we use is "The rules are written in blood." It basically means that someone was hurt or killed and the new rule was created to prevent it from happening again. The problem then becomes: Will the new rule prevent future occurances and is the new rule the best solution? Preventing the compromise of sensitive information isn't an easy problem. There are no simple solutions especially since each potential compromise may only be of a small piece of information that, by itself, isn't sensitive. However, the collection of many small pieces of information adds up to a big picture that should not be available to the bad guys.
Thank you for the welcome aboard. I am a new poster but I have been reading slashdot for a while.
I guess it wouldn't do much good to say, "I am who I say I am." I can only point you to the SageTV and DragonGlobal forums where I have a history. A little searching or asking will quickly confirm anything about me. I have never been secretive about who I am.
My point about the order is that it is largely unpractical. While the order may stay on the books, it will not be enforced simply because it can't. Communication from the battlefronts is limited by simple logistics and may be screened, but not all Soldiers or Sailors are on the front line. We do have personal lives that often include postings on the internet that have nothing to do with the military. My original comment was also based on Navy experience extrapolated to the Army. Which, considering the similarity of military organization, shouldn't be too far a leap.
I personally don't think the regulation is necessary, either. The need for OPSEC is known to everyone with a military ID. Since the military is, by and large, a good representation of the general public, there are individuals that don't understand or follow the rules regardless of the importance of said rules. That is a leadership challenge for those individuals' supervisors.
First off, I'm not in the Army. I am, however, in the Navy and there have always been regulations about what can and cannot be shared with the public. OPSEC (Operational Security) is something every active duty military member is familiar with. There are filters in military email servers to flag emails that may violate OPSEC, but nothing like what the article describes. As a microISV and a Sailor, I wouldn't dream of putting everything I post through any military channel.
Bottom line: this is an unpractical regulation and it won't last long.
Slashdot Mirror
You might have misread the numbers. They said 256 'bits'. 256 bits can distinguish roughly 1.1 * 10^77 states. That's a LOT. 1024 bits can distinguish roughly 1.8 * 10^308 states. I don't think there are that many atoms in the universe. Jere
No offense taken. I've been reading slashdot way to long to have a thin skin. :)
I agree that something must have happened. The saying that we use is "The rules are written in blood." It basically means that someone was hurt or killed and the new rule was created to prevent it from happening again. The problem then becomes: Will the new rule prevent future occurances and is the new rule the best solution? Preventing the compromise of sensitive information isn't an easy problem. There are no simple solutions especially since each potential compromise may only be of a small piece of information that, by itself, isn't sensitive. However, the collection of many small pieces of information adds up to a big picture that should not be available to the bad guys.
Thank you for the welcome aboard. I am a new poster but I have been reading slashdot for a while.
I guess it wouldn't do much good to say, "I am who I say I am." I can only point you to the SageTV and DragonGlobal forums where I have a history. A little searching or asking will quickly confirm anything about me. I have never been secretive about who I am.
My point about the order is that it is largely unpractical. While the order may stay on the books, it will not be enforced simply because it can't. Communication from the battlefronts is limited by simple logistics and may be screened, but not all Soldiers or Sailors are on the front line. We do have personal lives that often include postings on the internet that have nothing to do with the military. My original comment was also based on Navy experience extrapolated to the Army. Which, considering the similarity of military organization, shouldn't be too far a leap.
I personally don't think the regulation is necessary, either. The need for OPSEC is known to everyone with a military ID. Since the military is, by and large, a good representation of the general public, there are individuals that don't understand or follow the rules regardless of the importance of said rules. That is a leadership challenge for those individuals' supervisors.
First off, I'm not in the Army. I am, however, in the Navy and there have always been regulations about what can and cannot be shared with the public. OPSEC (Operational Security) is something every active duty military member is familiar with. There are filters in military email servers to flag emails that may violate OPSEC, but nothing like what the article describes. As a microISV and a Sailor, I wouldn't dream of putting everything I post through any military channel. Bottom line: this is an unpractical regulation and it won't last long.