The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.
Unless the NSL is just a cover used to mask what's really going on. If it were, it would be a fairly effective misdirection. If everyone's eyes are on the requests, and the NSL originally had a gag order attached - then nobody would think this wasn't the real official program.
The CA's private key is not the private key used to encrypt the traffic. The server's private key is used for that. The server's public key is signed by the CA's private key for proof of identity. You can only get access to the session by being MITM.
SSL uses the server's private key and public key as well as the same from the visitor. The CA's private key is used to sign the certificate. The certificate itself only proves that the server you are talking to was verified by the CA. The CA's private key can only sign new certs - it can't decrypt web traffic.
So whether it's standard SSL or D-H, we're still talking about MITM attacks.
No. If it's not signed by the same self-signing CA the clients have trusted already, it won't be trusted by the client machines. It would pop up the same standard untrusted site warning.
Well of course it requires a MITM attack. Same scale as non-SSL or not, they can still pick a large number of targets. To do MITM on a wifi network, you can probably still intercept the encrypted data for MITM by spoofing ARP data faster than the router/AP/switches can provide it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be out-of-band. If it's a consistent group of users there from the beginning, they would all trust the original certificate once and still be notified by the browser if they're presented with a self-signed cert they don't already trust.
I never said that self-signed was more secure. I was responding to you claiming that CA's weren't another link in the chain to be broken. It is. Why else would you now say that CA certificates were more secure if they weren't another link in the chain of security?
If you have fingerprints that are stored, then Amazon suddenly has to look untrusted if they change their private key for any reason whatsoever. And they'd have to have an out-of-band method of notifying users that their private key changed for a legitimate reason.
Because you can add the self-signing CA to your browser and not get security warnings unless the server suddenly switched.
A third party proxy doesn't need the private key to decrypt the data. They are the end-user from the server's perspective and so they can use their own key to decrypt it. Then they would re-encrypt it using their own private key. But since they presented their own certificate to the victim, that's irrelevant. If it went from a known self-signed cert to something else, a user would know if they stored the original cert to their trusted list.
As long as you have the CA's key, you can sign your own private key to execute a MITM attack. You don't need to have the real private key to do this. In the middle, you decrypt and re-encrypt before sending packets along. The site visitor doesn't know if they're connecting to the "correct" private key. There's no way to know that. They just know they're connecting to a site that's using a public key that has also been used to sign a certificate.
And since your certificate is unknown to the CA, it won't be in any certificate revocation lists, either.
If you have the CA's own key, you can generate a fake certificate that looks real in every way to the browser. You would be encrypting with a different private key when communicating with the visitor's browser. The user just wouldn't know since they're decrypting with their own key.
Everything that is not urban is rural - by several popular usages of the word. And yes, words change meaning over time. Get over it. We do not have a central authority for the English language like the French do. Whatever is common usage IS the meaning of the word.
Then what is the word for a town of 3,000? It's certainly not urban. If we don't have an in-between word, I'd have assumed its either/or - rural or urban. That definition of rural that includes anything non-urban is certainly in common usage.
Then what is the word for a town of 3,000? It's certainly not urban. If we don't have an in-between word, I'd have assumed its either/or - rural or urban. That definition of rural that includes anything non-urbab is certainly in common usage.
I hate this misuse of fundamentalists. Call them extremists. Those people are not basing their ideology on the fundamentals. There is no Biblical foundation for believing this way.
Except we can afford it just fine. It's only $3 on the phone bill or something like that. You don't pay the USF on a prepaid cell phone so how much does it really affect the poor?
So we should just mark off entire large swaths of our country as unusable and then all cram into the cities? Floodplains are very rich for agriculture, getting nutrient-rich silt during rare floods. Farms still exist, so towns exist around that industry.
Well - roads tend to last longer if they're not over-run with semi trucks. According to a recent study, "road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars."
Why should those 2-3 houses pay for a place for you to ride your motorcycle? Clearly they're not the only ones getting a benefit from the road.
It says they are DBA as "Coalition for Affordable Health Coverage Found." The organization's officers are all based in Washington, D.C. Considering their funding dropped sharply right after 2008, I'm sure they were heavily involved in the last election.
Paul S. Hewitt is the primary person behind the organization. He is originally from Salt Lake City, Utah.
Purpose statement (useless): The Organization's primary purpose is to ensure that the interests of the younger and future generations are well-defined and fairly represented. The Organizaion seeks to measure and communicate their interests to interested parties and the general public.
Also interesting: Thierry Dongala, former vice president of the organization, misappropriated funds totaling $17,559. T. Dongala was removed from his position with the organization. Efforts to recover these funds from T. Dongala were unsuccessful and the organization in 2011 reported this balance as taxable compensation to T. Dongala on a Form 1099.
Running the fiber to build towers is still a big part of running wire to every house. The USF really should be getting used for this instead, though. Rural areas should be overflowing with LTE capacity since there's few people per mile and it would be a relative monopoly on broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.
It also makes you wonder what they're putting in our water supply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s
That's VERY true.
You're right about that. But the CA is still just one link in the chain, of course. Just a very / the most important one.
Unless the NSL is just a cover used to mask what's really going on. If it were, it would be a fairly effective misdirection. If everyone's eyes are on the requests, and the NSL originally had a gag order attached - then nobody would think this wasn't the real official program.
The CA's private key is not the private key used to encrypt the traffic. The server's private key is used for that. The server's public key is signed by the CA's private key for proof of identity. You can only get access to the session by being MITM.
SSL uses the server's private key and public key as well as the same from the visitor. The CA's private key is used to sign the certificate. The certificate itself only proves that the server you are talking to was verified by the CA. The CA's private key can only sign new certs - it can't decrypt web traffic.
So whether it's standard SSL or D-H, we're still talking about MITM attacks.
No. If it's not signed by the same self-signing CA the clients have trusted already, it won't be trusted by the client machines. It would pop up the same standard untrusted site warning.
Well of course it requires a MITM attack. Same scale as non-SSL or not, they can still pick a large number of targets. To do MITM on a wifi network, you can probably still intercept the encrypted data for MITM by spoofing ARP data faster than the router/AP/switches can provide it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be out-of-band. If it's a consistent group of users there from the beginning, they would all trust the original certificate once and still be notified by the browser if they're presented with a self-signed cert they don't already trust.
I never said that self-signed was more secure. I was responding to you claiming that CA's weren't another link in the chain to be broken. It is. Why else would you now say that CA certificates were more secure if they weren't another link in the chain of security?
If you have fingerprints that are stored, then Amazon suddenly has to look untrusted if they change their private key for any reason whatsoever. And they'd have to have an out-of-band method of notifying users that their private key changed for a legitimate reason.
Because you can add the self-signing CA to your browser and not get security warnings unless the server suddenly switched.
A third party proxy doesn't need the private key to decrypt the data. They are the end-user from the server's perspective and so they can use their own key to decrypt it. Then they would re-encrypt it using their own private key. But since they presented their own certificate to the victim, that's irrelevant. If it went from a known self-signed cert to something else, a user would know if they stored the original cert to their trusted list.
As long as you have the CA's key, you can sign your own private key to execute a MITM attack. You don't need to have the real private key to do this. In the middle, you decrypt and re-encrypt before sending packets along. The site visitor doesn't know if they're connecting to the "correct" private key. There's no way to know that. They just know they're connecting to a site that's using a public key that has also been used to sign a certificate.
And since your certificate is unknown to the CA, it won't be in any certificate revocation lists, either.
If you have the CA's own key, you can generate a fake certificate that looks real in every way to the browser. You would be encrypting with a different private key when communicating with the visitor's browser. The user just wouldn't know since they're decrypting with their own key.
Like adding even more digital extras into the future re-releases of A New Hope.
Many official government agencies disagree with you.
http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/policy/definition_of_rural.html
Everything that is not urban is rural - by several popular usages of the word. And yes, words change meaning over time. Get over it. We do not have a central authority for the English language like the French do. Whatever is common usage IS the meaning of the word.
Then what is the word for a town of 3,000? It's certainly not urban. If we don't have an in-between word, I'd have assumed its either/or - rural or urban. That definition of rural that includes anything non-urban is certainly in common usage.
Then what is the word for a town of 3,000? It's certainly not urban. If we don't have an in-between word, I'd have assumed its either/or - rural or urban. That definition of rural that includes anything non-urbab is certainly in common usage.
Small towns are rural. And I've lived in an apartment in one.
I hate this misuse of fundamentalists. Call them extremists. Those people are not basing their ideology on the fundamentals. There is no Biblical foundation for believing this way.
Except we can afford it just fine. It's only $3 on the phone bill or something like that. You don't pay the USF on a prepaid cell phone so how much does it really affect the poor?
And who's paying them ~$100,000 a year?
That was during an election year. Their most recent 990 says they only received $25,000 last year:
https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2012_11_EO/20-5283809_990EZ_201112.pdf
Their other web site is:
http://cahc.net/
The cost of serving some areas outweighs all the revenue from the service. The USF is the only way some people have any hope of phone service.
So we should just mark off entire large swaths of our country as unusable and then all cram into the cities? Floodplains are very rich for agriculture, getting nutrient-rich silt during rare floods. Farms still exist, so towns exist around that industry.
Well - roads tend to last longer if they're not over-run with semi trucks. According to a recent study, "road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars."
Why should those 2-3 houses pay for a place for you to ride your motorcycle? Clearly they're not the only ones getting a benefit from the road.
Does this help (Their Tax Exempt Form 990)?
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/205/205283809/205283809_201112_990EZ.pdf
It says they are DBA as "Coalition for Affordable Health Coverage Found." The organization's officers are all based in Washington, D.C. Considering their funding dropped sharply right after 2008, I'm sure they were heavily involved in the last election.
This is their web site: http://cahc.net/
Paul S. Hewitt is the primary person behind the organization. He is originally from Salt Lake City, Utah.
Purpose statement (useless):
The Organization's primary
purpose is to ensure that the interests of the younger and future
generations are well-defined and fairly represented. The Organizaion
seeks to measure and communicate their interests to interested parties
and the general public.
Also interesting:
Thierry Dongala, former vice president
of the organization, misappropriated funds totaling $17,559. T. Dongala
was removed from his position with the organization. Efforts to recover
these funds from T. Dongala were unsuccessful and the organization in 2011
reported this balance as taxable compensation to T. Dongala on a Form
1099.
Running the fiber to build towers is still a big part of running wire to every house. The USF really should be getting used for this instead, though. Rural areas should be overflowing with LTE capacity since there's few people per mile and it would be a relative monopoly on broadband.