I've hung Linux before [try using full screen DGA apps at the same time as TV stuff...] so don't go telling me that Linux is all that.
In fact with XP the only time I ever restart is when third party software fucks up [e.g. persistant startup crap]. Perhaps that is a shortcomming of the OS but when I fry the 3rd party crap I have no troubles.
And at least XP is more graceful. When 3rd party crap GPF's it doesn't bring down my whole machine like TV stuff does.
Whatever turns their cranks. Personally I don't believe most of what comes from theoretical physicists. I think they make up this shit that is hard to prove for the sole reason of making jobs. Sure lots of its practical but alot is not and in the mean time we still have practical things to work out of society like money, hunger and religion.
Why not concentrate such powerful minds on coming up with solutions to problems that will make the world a better place. In the shortterm who gives a rats ass if there are blackwholes a million billion miles away. That doesn't cloth or educate [see what tuition is for a first year in college] the not so well off portions of society and I am not even talking about the homeless!
If these people were so smart they wouldn't turn their backs on the majority of society. Instead they are fame hungry self-centered little bitches trying to get their faces on SciAm and aim for Tenure.
Nobody in their right mind uses a 64-bit key for a symmetric cipher anymore. Its essentially assumed that its not a good idea. Most people just default to a 128-bit key and pray that the rest of the cryptosystem is worth the same.
See what the dnet people miss is that while a long key is a good idea to encourage, good crypto practices such as
1. Lots of eyes on the code 2. Open peer review [encourages good coding lest you want to get embarrased] 3. Good passwords 4. Secure clients [e.g. no viruses] etc...
are more important. All dnet is proving is that >250000 computers can attack a 64-bit key in four years. What they fail to mention is to attack a 128-bit key will take 2^64 more time [or more computers in the same time] to solve.
The algorithm probably checks for ASCII characters [e.g. the top bits of each byte is zero]. You can't decrypt just one byte in CBC mode with RC5.
What is to say I don't make my own client that does the same thing except it locally logs such hits [statistically they are 1/256] There are other things you can check too... for example the chars inside the body are likely to be in the range 32..127 which is 96 chars of the 256 possible. Statistically that is (96/256)^8 or 1/2048. There are multiple blocks which gives you 2^{-11N}.
So its just as easy to write your own client. The challenge is finding users. But like I said earlier. If you are going to run it anyways you might as well run your own client. You stand equally as much chance.
Perhaps but how many blocks reported to dnet are valid in the first place?
A real experiment would not hand out the same block to only one person. Heck check out UD they claim to send the same block to at least five people. And I agree its a good idea. That chances that 5 people are cheats is less than the prob of only 1.
Besides, there are teams of thousands on dnet. Why don't they organize their own cache? We already know quite a bit of the keyspace is invalid.
My point is there is really no need for dnet other than stats and glory. My single computer stands about as much chance of finding the key inside dnet or outside dnet.
The only reason you "submit" blocks is to get stats. If all the clients just did random blocks of keys you'd expect the key to be found equally as fast.
To top if off the finder of the key gets the *full* 10,000$ if they don't go thru d.net.
Um yeah we would be able to. The basic jist is that you would change the wavelength of the burner. Other than that it would be like burning a normal DVD except you make two passes.
Naturally though burning 9GB would take a long time which is probably another reason why dual-layer burners are not a priority.
And the only reason people "trust" their CA certificates is that people decided to pay to have them used.
Any joe-blow can make their own RSA key than sell off signatures. What makes them any more "trusted" than Verisign? I'll tell you. Tons of advertising and techy jargon.
e.g.
"We're the leaders in e-trust solutions via endocrygenetic potential leveraging trust devices"
or something like that.
For a good laugh check out the cloakware site. They're a bunch of hacks trying to peddle fairy-crypto. The sad thing is they might one day make a sale!
I base my "security" on the fact my router works well. If you are going to try and hack it inform me via email [tomstdenis@yahoo.com] of the exploit.
If you really want to destroy my machine [and are able to] just realize I will reinstall my OS and just turn shares off [which is the only service I think you might be able to exploit].
I'd rather you didn't try at all, or if you did don't aim to kill my comp.
But it would be interesting to see if you can see my comp through the router because according to the manual the way I have it setup should prevent you from contacting my machine directly.
Sure whatever "bub". I've been using the command prompt since DOS 5.0 [admitedly I am young] and I'd say most MS users then were familiar with the command shell.
Nowadays the average user *does not* need it. The command prompt is still there so who cares?
a) have opinions b) Not childish like you to hide behind AC.
See what AC tells me is that you are just a coward and doesn't believe in what you are saying. See when you grow up an ounce and get a bit of self-respect you will be able to post your real thoughts without hiding.
Until then keep your commy loving thoughts to yourself.
Hahahaha funny original, why didn't I think of that?
Why is it 99% of people who dis MS never actually code/develop programs anyways? I mean you can knock MSFT all you want and I'd still say the chances of you hacking into my box are slim to none. [Specially considering I am behind a router].
In my area we have the cable company advertising that "with cable additional outlets cost a fraction of satelite" then 2 seconds later they advertise their digital service [which doesn't cost a fraction per outlet].
To boot they removed the movie channels from normal cable so really if you want to have even a chance of watching something interesting you have to get digital cable.
The problem is only a minority of usenet users want to send a majority of usenet traffic.
Nothing against new programs and all but seriously. If you think new encoding schemes on usenet is a good idea than you should have your head cleaned out with a nice CZ75.40
...thinks distributing binaries through usenet is a huge waste of bandwidth? I mean if you really got to get your kiddy porn out or a hack of XP why not just post links to websites with it?
What people don't realize is that when you post a 250KB attachment that 80,000 servers around the world will download that... thats 19.3GB of traffic or so. Just for one measily attachment.
Any ISP that bans attachements in usenet is fair game in my books. They are doing the rest of us a service.
Yeah, assume the technology works and its all great and that. Its still a completely different challenge to get a telco to invest in it and actually implement it.
Since when does running "vi" make you a geek? Vi is just yet another antiquated shitty text editor that should die off.
I mean am I a geek because I choose todo things the hardway? Does coding in your head straight to x86 binary code make you a geek?
Christ, grow up kids. At the very least consider a text editor that doesn't require a PhD to use. Heck, even the shitty linux OS distro's come with gedit or kedit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because linux is so cool aight.
Tom
I've hung Linux before [try using full screen DGA apps at the same time as TV stuff...] so don't go telling me that Linux is all that.
In fact with XP the only time I ever restart is when third party software fucks up [e.g. persistant startup crap]. Perhaps that is a shortcomming of the OS but when I fry the 3rd party crap I have no troubles.
And at least XP is more graceful. When 3rd party crap GPF's it doesn't bring down my whole machine like TV stuff does.
Tom
Let me see... oh yeah...
Heretic! Blashphemer! [sp?]
Whatever turns their cranks. Personally I don't believe most of what comes from theoretical physicists. I think they make up this shit that is hard to prove for the sole reason of making jobs. Sure lots of its practical but alot is not and in the mean time we still have practical things to work out of society like money, hunger and religion.
Why not concentrate such powerful minds on coming up with solutions to problems that will make the world a better place. In the shortterm who gives a rats ass if there are blackwholes a million billion miles away. That doesn't cloth or educate [see what tuition is for a first year in college] the not so well off portions of society and I am not even talking about the homeless!
If these people were so smart they wouldn't turn their backs on the majority of society. Instead they are fame hungry self-centered little bitches trying to get their faces on SciAm and aim for Tenure.
Whatever...
Tom
I probably wouldn't because what does this prove?
Nobody in their right mind uses a 64-bit key for a symmetric cipher anymore. Its essentially assumed that its not a good idea. Most people just default to a 128-bit key and pray that the rest of the cryptosystem is worth the same.
See what the dnet people miss is that while a long key is a good idea to encourage, good crypto practices such as
1. Lots of eyes on the code
2. Open peer review [encourages good coding lest you want to get embarrased]
3. Good passwords
4. Secure clients [e.g. no viruses]
etc...
are more important. All dnet is proving is that >250000 computers can attack a 64-bit key in four years. What they fail to mention is to attack a 128-bit key will take 2^64 more time [or more computers in the same time] to solve.
Whoopy.
Tom
What the heck is this?
The algorithm probably checks for ASCII characters [e.g. the top bits of each byte is zero]. You can't decrypt just one byte in CBC mode with RC5.
What is to say I don't make my own client that does the same thing except it locally logs such hits [statistically they are 1/256] There are other things you can check too... for example the chars inside the body are likely to be in the range 32..127 which is 96 chars of the 256 possible. Statistically that is (96/256)^8 or 1/2048. There are multiple blocks which gives you 2^{-11N}.
So its just as easy to write your own client. The challenge is finding users. But like I said earlier. If you are going to run it anyways you might as well run your own client. You stand equally as much chance.
Tom
Perhaps but how many blocks reported to dnet are valid in the first place?
A real experiment would not hand out the same block to only one person. Heck check out UD they claim to send the same block to at least five people. And I agree its a good idea. That chances that 5 people are cheats is less than the prob of only 1.
Besides, there are teams of thousands on dnet. Why don't they organize their own cache? We already know quite a bit of the keyspace is invalid.
My point is there is really no need for dnet other than stats and glory. My single computer stands about as much chance of finding the key inside dnet or outside dnet.
Tom
The only reason you "submit" blocks is to get stats. If all the clients just did random blocks of keys you'd expect the key to be found equally as fast.
To top if off the finder of the key gets the *full* 10,000$ if they don't go thru d.net.
What incentive is there for d.net now?
Tom
Maybe the slashdot editors should do more reading?
Just because some dude makes a PROPOSAL for a RESEARCH GRANT doesn't mean its at all completed or conclusive.
These stupid headers are just another vain attempt to get people to post. Now shuddup about hypocracy.
Tom
Um yeah we would be able to. The basic jist is that you would change the wavelength of the burner. Other than that it would be like burning a normal DVD except you make two passes.
Naturally though burning 9GB would take a long time which is probably another reason why dual-layer burners are not a priority.
Tom
And the only reason people "trust" their CA certificates is that people decided to pay to have them used.
Any joe-blow can make their own RSA key than sell off signatures. What makes them any more "trusted" than Verisign? I'll tell you. Tons of advertising and techy jargon.
e.g.
"We're the leaders in e-trust solutions via endocrygenetic potential leveraging trust devices"
or something like that.
For a good laugh check out the cloakware site. They're a bunch of hacks trying to peddle fairy-crypto. The sad thing is they might one day make a sale!
Tom
Ok lay down some grounds facts.
I base my "security" on the fact my router works well. If you are going to try and hack it inform me via email [tomstdenis@yahoo.com] of the exploit.
If you really want to destroy my machine [and are able to] just realize I will reinstall my OS and just turn shares off [which is the only service I think you might be able to exploit].
I'd rather you didn't try at all, or if you did don't aim to kill my comp.
But it would be interesting to see if you can see my comp through the router because according to the manual the way I have it setup should prevent you from contacting my machine directly.
Tom
Sure whatever "bub". I've been using the command prompt since DOS 5.0 [admitedly I am young] and I'd say most MS users then were familiar with the command shell.
Nowadays the average user *does not* need it. The command prompt is still there so who cares?
Tom
check out my url.
So what? Having my own opinions on the state of affairs is "poor judgement". I should blindly follow the Linux crowd?
I think not.
tom
So I
a) have opinions
b) Not childish like you to hide behind AC.
See what AC tells me is that you are just a coward and doesn't believe in what you are saying. See when you grow up an ounce and get a bit of self-respect you will be able to post your real thoughts without hiding.
Until then keep your commy loving thoughts to yourself.
Tom
At least I post with my real name.
Tom
Hahahaha funny original, why didn't I think of that?
Why is it 99% of people who dis MS never actually code/develop programs anyways? I mean you can knock MSFT all you want and I'd still say the chances of you hacking into my box are slim to none. [Specially considering I am behind a router].
Tom
In my area we have the cable company advertising that "with cable additional outlets cost a fraction of satelite" then 2 seconds later they advertise their digital service [which doesn't cost a fraction per outlet].
To boot they removed the movie channels from normal cable so really if you want to have even a chance of watching something interesting you have to get digital cable.
Tom
Actually this is entirely possible. If the two layers of the disk react to different wavelengths you can easily burn the two layers..
Tom
The problem is only a minority of usenet users want to send a majority of usenet traffic.
.40
Nothing against new programs and all but seriously. If you think new encoding schemes on usenet is a good idea than you should have your head cleaned out with a nice CZ75
Tom
Why would you put it in a .warez group? Are you agreeing that the only use for this is to distribute warez like the commy loving swine you are?
...thinks distributing binaries through usenet is a huge waste of bandwidth? I mean if you really got to get your kiddy porn out or a hack of XP why not just post links to websites with it?
... thats 19.3GB of traffic or so. Just for one measily attachment.
What people don't realize is that when you post a 250KB attachment that 80,000 servers around the world will download that
Any ISP that bans attachements in usenet is fair game in my books. They are doing the rest of us a service.
Tom
Yeah, assume the technology works and its all great and that. Its still a completely different challenge to get a telco to invest in it and actually implement it.
Tom
.... Using the existing fiber that is in the ground would be.
Tom
Since when does running "vi" make you a geek? Vi is just yet another antiquated shitty text editor that should die off.
I mean am I a geek because I choose todo things the hardway? Does coding in your head straight to x86 binary code make you a geek?
Christ, grow up kids. At the very least consider a text editor that doesn't require a PhD to use. Heck, even the shitty linux OS distro's come with gedit or kedit.
Tom