Using 2 encryption methods and two keys prevents a vulnerability in one from being a method of attack.
Using 2 encryption methods and two keys prevents a brute-force attack, since brute-force attacks require some way to recognize the success of an attack, such as a series of words as a result. With 2 encryption methods a successful brute-force attack will only present almost perfectly random data to the attacker.
Slashdot editors apparently played video games instead of learning how the world works. Now they are excited by foolish pseudo-science. The pseudo-science here is that yes, the system demonstrated works, but that has been known for many decades. And it won't be "improved" unless there is some Nobel-Prize-winning breakthrough in understanding of electromagnetism.
"Plus a nice pulsating magnetic field in the house? No thank you." Exactly. As you walk past the field with anything that conducts, energy will be transferred to what you are carrying. A sloppy wet sandwich will become warmer, for example. Your skin will become slightly warmer.
I think my point is correct: It is very unlikely that two different very
strong encryption methods will be cracked at the same time. So using two or
more, even if the methods and their order are known by an attacker, provides
protection against attack.
You said, "... it's impossible to create an attack that can target
any encryption..." That's part of what I was saying.
And my comment should not have been moderated Redundant, since all the
comments posted before it were just junk when it was posted.
My understanding is that this is the big issue about mathematical attacks: They depend on the encryption method. If you merely encrypt things more than once, using two or more different encryption methods, the chances there will ever be a successful mathematical attack are very, very small.
I have an enormous amount of respect for Bruce Schneier, but his writing is designed to get him business, not to give easy answers to big problems.
MOD PARENT UP. Calling it a "Troll" is disgusting.
How much does it matter to you that Python is only bytecode compiled, allowing easy de-compilation?
It seems to me that the fundamental problem with C++ is that the development of the language that will happen in 2009 or 2010 should have happened 10 years ago. It amazes me that big corporations use C++, but aren't willing to support the language.
"... I found OpenSolaris significantly slower than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE..."
"There are fewer packages available than for a mainstream Linux distro, although they do have over a thousand (and certainly enough for a fully-functioning system). The package naming is slightly odd; package names begin with a handful of capital letters (eg SUNW or FSW)."
"ZFS is transactional, meaning that the filesystem is always consistent (so fsck or equivalent isn't used or needed), and snapshots are intentionally both easy and cheap in terms of disk space."
"I'm very impressed with the concepts behind ZFS, but I'm also concerned that cross-functionality with Linux is limited."
"I did find it frustrating to have to relearn commands that I've been using without thinking for years now (eg ifconfig), and right now I'm not convinced that for me it's worth the mental effort, especially given the relative scarcity of external software available."
If you want to know more about how genetic modification makes extortion
against farmers possible, see the movie, "The Future of
Food".
The movie is about a plan of a big corporation, Monsanto to get control over the food supply, using its patented genetically powerful weed-killer Roundup, and patented seeds that are resistant to the weed-killer.
This is how Monsanto does it: Monsanto patented and sells a genetically modified versions of normal food crops. Inevitably, some of those plants spread and begin to grow in another field near where they were planted. The corporation then sues the farmer in that field for patent infringement. Amazingly, the courts find in favor of Monsanto, even though the farmer had no involvement in the spread of Monsanto's genetically modified plants; it is the nature of plants to spread.
The farmer either begins to buy genetically modified seed from Monsanto, or loses his or her farm. Then the same situation happens again, around that farm.
The Future of Food is a 2004 documentary film which makes an in-depth investigation into unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly made their way into grocery stores in the United States for the past decade.
The Telluride Daily Planet wrote, "This stylish film is... a look at something we might not
want to see: Monsanto, Roundup, and Roundup-resistant seeds, collectively
wreaking havoc on American farmers and our agricultural neighbors around the
world."
The film reports the legal action against a number of farmers in
North America by Monsanto. The defendant of the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case is interviewed.
"If you eat food, you need to see The Future of Food", wrote
Newstarget.com.
The film was written and directed by Deborah Koons Garcia, and
produced by Catherine Lynn Butler and Deborah Koons Garcia. You can view an interview of Ms. Garcia produced by The Massachusetts School of Law: The Future of Food: What Every Person Should Know.
Thanks for that comment. I knew nothing about Kevin Warwick until I read the Wikipedia article about him. He's not really involved in science, apparently, it's theater.
"Why is it wrong for scientists to attract attention?"
Of course, it is not wrong. What is wrong is LYING to get attention. What is wrong is Slashdot carrying a lot of stories about fake science that happens to want investors.
Most people don't know the meaning of science, yet know it is important. It is easy to take advantage of them.
The complaint applies to the version of Windows most people have.
A VERY nice feature of Free, Open Source Software is that there are no
license hassles.
Another VERY nice feature is that the software is not designed in such
a way as to trick the user into paying more. There are 7? versions of Vista: Vista Starter*, Home Basic, Home
Premium, Business, Ultimate, and Vista Enterprise. That's 6, but I think there
is one more. And they are all not a new operating system, but just a new
version of Windows XP.
And, even worse --> Windows XP was a huge, huge hassle for three
years, until Service Pack 2 was released.
Uglier still --> --> Then, after only 3 relatively good years,
Microsoft announced that it had declared the death of Windows XP!!!
More sheer ugliness: There are operating system files that the
operating system won't copy, making backups a big hassle. There is the
sloppiness which makes software be self-degrading and very vulnerable to
attack, which helps the vendor sell more copies, because people throw away the corrupted computers and buy new ones, therefore paying for
a new copy of the operating system. Another abuse: Microsoft drones attended
OSCON, trying to infiltrate the Open Source Convention to sell things that
require payment in more than money, in acceptance of abuse, also. There is
making new versions that require far more powerful hardware, so that customers
will require new computers, making it more profitable for hardware vendors,
who then accept that they are being abused in other ways.
It's when you catalog ALL the abuses of commercial software vendors
that it become obvious that it is good to avoid them if at all possible. Not
all of Microsoft's abuses are cataloged here, of course.
(*Note from Microsoft: Windows Vista Starter is not currently
scheduled to be available in the United States, Canada, the European Union,
Australia, New Zealand, or other high income markets as defined by the World
Bank.)
Nah. It's science fraud, in my opinion. The technique seems real, but the use is exaggerated. Employees would just wash their hands in a solution of soap and chlorine bleach before they went to work. The soap and bleach tears the molecules of complex compounds apart.
Those who were especially careful would wear gloves when they handled an unusual substance.
That kind of exaggeration of the benefits of some new science is common now. Maybe Griffin Analytical Technologies is looking for investors. Maybe it is an advertisement. Certainly any scientist knows about the effects of bleach.
My opinion: Too much P.R. to be completely honest.
We've had a lot of problems with Intel graphics software. You are correct, however, we haven't tested the latest offerings from Intel. We felt so abused by the previous chipsets that we have had no desire to test the new software.
The last video driver we tested was version 14311 for the 945 chipset. It had a LOT of problems. There was a LOT of denial by Intel that there were problems.
So, I would be very interested to know: Is the video in the 965 chipset better? Is the software trouble-free? How about rotated vertically on a 1920 x 1200 monitor?
If Intel is doing that, the company isn't doing a good job. Instead it is getting publicity from ArsTechnica about how it is communicating in a confused way.
Intel graphics has been TERRIBLE. We buy ATI video adapters (about $20) to put in business computers we build. (We've never bought from eWiz.com, or the particular video cards shown. That is just an example.)
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtful. That would require forking the code. See this comment just above.
Google makes money through advertising. That makes it unlikely at there will ever be an Adblock Plus for any browser that Google makes.
Thank you Nathan Halverson, for your unwillingness to accept government corruption. I wish we had more people like you.
Okay, then, want to build a Large Hadron Collider? Or are you one of those people who think Hadrons should be left alone?
MOD PARENT UP.
Using 2 encryption methods and two keys prevents a vulnerability in one from being a method of attack.
Using 2 encryption methods and two keys prevents a brute-force attack, since brute-force attacks require some way to recognize the success of an attack, such as a series of words as a result. With 2 encryption methods a successful brute-force attack will only present almost perfectly random data to the attacker.
Slashdot editors apparently played video games instead of learning how the world works. Now they are excited by foolish pseudo-science. The pseudo-science here is that yes, the system demonstrated works, but that has been known for many decades. And it won't be "improved" unless there is some Nobel-Prize-winning breakthrough in understanding of electromagnetism.
"Plus a nice pulsating magnetic field in the house? No thank you." Exactly. As you walk past the field with anything that conducts, energy will be transferred to what you are carrying. A sloppy wet sandwich will become warmer, for example. Your skin will become slightly warmer.
I think my point is correct: It is very unlikely that two different very strong encryption methods will be cracked at the same time. So using two or more, even if the methods and their order are known by an attacker, provides protection against attack.
You said, "... it's impossible to create an attack that can target any encryption..." That's part of what I was saying.
And my comment should not have been moderated Redundant, since all the comments posted before it were just junk when it was posted.
My understanding is that this is the big issue about mathematical attacks: They depend on the encryption method. If you merely encrypt things more than once, using two or more different encryption methods, the chances there will ever be a successful mathematical attack are very, very small.
I have an enormous amount of respect for Bruce Schneier, but his writing is designed to get him business, not to give easy answers to big problems.
I recommend GNU Privacy Guard.
MOD PARENT UP. Calling it a "Troll" is disgusting.
How much does it matter to you that Python is only bytecode compiled, allowing easy de-compilation?
It seems to me that the fundamental problem with C++ is that the development of the language that will happen in 2009 or 2010 should have happened 10 years ago. It amazes me that big corporations use C++, but aren't willing to support the language.
Excerpts from the article:
"... I found OpenSolaris significantly slower than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE..."
"There are fewer packages available than for a mainstream Linux distro, although they do have over a thousand (and certainly enough for a fully-functioning system). The package naming is slightly odd; package names begin with a handful of capital letters (eg SUNW or FSW)."
"ZFS is transactional, meaning that the filesystem is always consistent (so fsck or equivalent isn't used or needed), and snapshots are intentionally both easy and cheap in terms of disk space."
"I'm very impressed with the concepts behind ZFS, but I'm also concerned that cross-functionality with Linux is limited."
"I did find it frustrating to have to relearn commands that I've been using without thinking for years now (eg ifconfig), and right now I'm not convinced that for me it's worth the mental effort, especially given the relative scarcity of external software available."
If you want to know more about how genetic modification makes extortion against farmers possible, see the movie, "The Future of Food" .
... a look at something we might not
want to see: Monsanto, Roundup, and Roundup-resistant seeds, collectively
wreaking havoc on American farmers and our agricultural neighbors around the
world."
The movie is about a plan of a big corporation, Monsanto to get control over the food supply, using its patented genetically powerful weed-killer Roundup, and patented seeds that are resistant to the weed-killer.
This is how Monsanto does it: Monsanto patented and sells a genetically modified versions of normal food crops. Inevitably, some of those plants spread and begin to grow in another field near where they were planted. The corporation then sues the farmer in that field for patent infringement. Amazingly, the courts find in favor of Monsanto, even though the farmer had no involvement in the spread of Monsanto's genetically modified plants; it is the nature of plants to spread.
The farmer either begins to buy genetically modified seed from Monsanto, or loses his or her farm. Then the same situation happens again, around that farm.
The Future of Food is a 2004 documentary film which makes an in-depth investigation into unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly made their way into grocery stores in the United States for the past decade.
The Telluride Daily Planet wrote, "This stylish film is
The film reports the legal action against a number of farmers in North America by Monsanto. The defendant of the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case is interviewed.
"If you eat food, you need to see The Future of Food", wrote Newstarget.com.
The film was written and directed by Deborah Koons Garcia, and produced by Catherine Lynn Butler and Deborah Koons Garcia. You can view an interview of Ms. Garcia produced by The Massachusetts School of Law: The Future of Food: What Every Person Should Know.
Thanks for that comment. I knew nothing about Kevin Warwick until I read the Wikipedia article about him. He's not really involved in science, apparently, it's theater.
"Why is it wrong for scientists to attract attention?"
Of course, it is not wrong. What is wrong is LYING to get attention. What is wrong is Slashdot carrying a lot of stories about fake science that happens to want investors.
Most people don't know the meaning of science, yet know it is important. It is easy to take advantage of them.
Okay, then, I hope to become a famous male supermodel.
If you say, "No way", I will say you have become overly sensitive.
"The team at the University of Reading in the UK hope their research will help provide treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's and epilepsy."
That outcome is very much exaggerated, apparently to try to get more attention. Any such result would depend on other huge advancements not yet made.
The complaint applies to the version of Windows most people have.
A VERY nice feature of Free, Open Source Software is that there are no license hassles.
Another VERY nice feature is that the software is not designed in such a way as to trick the user into paying more. There are 7? versions of Vista: Vista Starter*, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, and Vista Enterprise. That's 6, but I think there is one more. And they are all not a new operating system, but just a new version of Windows XP.
And, even worse --> Windows XP was a huge, huge hassle for three years, until Service Pack 2 was released.
Uglier still --> --> Then, after only 3 relatively good years, Microsoft announced that it had declared the death of Windows XP!!!
More sheer ugliness: There are operating system files that the operating system won't copy, making backups a big hassle. There is the sloppiness which makes software be self-degrading and very vulnerable to attack, which helps the vendor sell more copies, because people throw away the corrupted computers and buy new ones, therefore paying for a new copy of the operating system. Another abuse: Microsoft drones attended OSCON, trying to infiltrate the Open Source Convention to sell things that require payment in more than money, in acceptance of abuse, also. There is making new versions that require far more powerful hardware, so that customers will require new computers, making it more profitable for hardware vendors, who then accept that they are being abused in other ways.
It's when you catalog ALL the abuses of commercial software vendors that it become obvious that it is good to avoid them if at all possible. Not all of Microsoft's abuses are cataloged here, of course.
(*Note from Microsoft: Windows Vista Starter is not currently scheduled to be available in the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, or other high income markets as defined by the World Bank.)
He's talking about the corporate version of Windows, which only requires a license serial number.
Nah. It's science fraud, in my opinion. The technique seems real, but the use is exaggerated. Employees would just wash their hands in a solution of soap and chlorine bleach before they went to work. The soap and bleach tears the molecules of complex compounds apart.
Those who were especially careful would wear gloves when they handled an unusual substance.
That kind of exaggeration of the benefits of some new science is common now. Maybe Griffin Analytical Technologies is looking for investors. Maybe it is an advertisement. Certainly any scientist knows about the effects of bleach.
My opinion: Too much P.R. to be completely honest.
Or, better idea, translate all the COBOL to C++. No teaching needed.
Why don't COBOL programmers who know C++, such as you, make a program to translate COBOL to C++?
When Slashdot readers don't believe the story, they make jokes and talk about off-topic issues.
Intel marketing department hasn't handled the introduction very well, in my opinion.
We've had a lot of problems with Intel graphics software. You are correct, however, we haven't tested the latest offerings from Intel. We felt so abused by the previous chipsets that we have had no desire to test the new software.
The last video driver we tested was version 14311 for the 945 chipset. It had a LOT of problems. There was a LOT of denial by Intel that there were problems.
So, I would be very interested to know: Is the video in the 965 chipset better? Is the software trouble-free? How about rotated vertically on a 1920 x 1200 monitor?
If Intel is doing that, the company isn't doing a good job. Instead it is getting publicity from ArsTechnica about how it is communicating in a confused way.
Intel graphics has been TERRIBLE. We buy ATI video adapters (about $20) to put in business computers we build. (We've never bought from eWiz.com, or the particular video cards shown. That is just an example.)