|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: TCTC
Date: Nov 17, 2006 23:14
David Wagner wrote:
> TC wrote:
>>Personally, I don't know much about IE security. So I haven't tried to
>>say, so far, that your claim is wrong. But I *have* searched for data
>>relevant to your claim, and the data that I found did not support it.
>>(It showed the complete opposite.)
|
| |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: David WagnerDavid Wagner
Date: Nov 17, 2006 22:59
TC wrote:
>Personally, I don't know much about IE security. So I haven't tried to
>say, so far, that your claim is wrong. But I *have* searched for data
>relevant to your claim, and the data that I found did not support it.
>(It showed the complete opposite.)
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: TCTC
Date: Nov 17, 2006 22:35
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> After all, it's a well-known fact!
The reason I get touchy about these "well known facts", is due to my
experience with MS Access.
An uncountable number of people will tell you that MS Access is a toy,
you can't do anything serious with MS Access, MS Access falls over once
you have a few thousand records, and so on. I've heard these so-called
"well known facts" from dozens of people with software development
pedigrees as long as your arm.
The only problem is, that I know from my own personal experience, as a
commercial software developer with over 30 years experience, that *none
of the above is true*. It is all *demonstrably false*. MS Access is one
of the most powerful desktop database products that has ever existed.
These misconceptions arise for a number of reasons, the most common of
which is, in my opinion, straight-out snobbery and Microsoft-bashing.
Most of the nay-sayers, when pushed, are completely unable to justify
their criticisms.
|
| Show full article (1.76Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Joseph AshwoodJoseph Ashwood
Date: Nov 17, 2006 22:09
>
> Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>
>> Actually it is a fairly trivial task, you look up the best attacks, these
>> attacks have a complexity, the algorithm where the lowest complexity
>> attack
>> is the most compex wins. This is trivial, in fact most of our
>> complexities
>> are expressed in terms of 2^k for some k, so simply comparing k gives the
>> correct result. If you can count, you can compare the cryptographic
>> strength.
> What is complexity?
The simplest explaination of it in this concept is the amount of time it
will take a computer to solve the problem/execute the program. If you were
to actually understand what is being written this would have been obvious.
> Can you define it? Is it quantitive or qualitive
> property?
|
| Show full article (8.59Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Nov 17, 2006 22:00
>fermineutron wrote:
>> Most experts argue that the quantum computers (QC) will require change
>> of assimetric key encryption systems. That is, the factorng of a large
>> number will no longer be a diffucult...
|
| Show full article (3.37Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Nov 17, 2006 21:57
"fermineutron" yahoo.com> writes:
>Lets define a black box as the hardware which takes 2 waves as the
>input and outputs a single wave frequency of which is the division of
>the frequency of wave 1 by frequency of wave 2. Now if out input waves
>each have 1e16 frequency components, we can do 1e16 divisions in
>several clock cycles. if we have a second black box which filters out
>all waves which have a non-integer frequency we can determine wether
>the collection of numbers by which we are dividing the frequency which
>represents the product of 2 primes contains the facor of that product.
>Functioning at 1 GHz it is possible to test by brute force 1e25 primes
>per second.
>Now thays fasst
Also does not make sense. Sorry.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Jan DrewJan Drew
Date: Nov 17, 2006 19:17
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Looks more like bot-generated nonsense.
>>>
>>> Spam is repeated commercial postings.
>>
>>
>> It is none of the above. It is a request by a person who understands
>> homelessness.
>>
That's correct.
[snip the audacity of one trying to trash T1]
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: David WagnerDavid Wagner
Date: Nov 17, 2006 18:47
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>After all, it's a well-known fact!
If it's a fact, it should be possible to provide evidence for it.
As for whether it's "well-known", well, that's neither here nor there:
there have been plenty of things that are "well-known" but actually false.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: David WagnerDavid Wagner
Date: Nov 17, 2006 18:43
Peter S. May wrote:
>What I'm wondering is whether, with a pre-determined bias like this, a
>given short series of rolls containing mostly 1s is equiprobable to some
>other much longer series of rolls which are mostly 0s,
Well, of course, you can calculate the probability of any particular
sequence of rolls. A sequence of rolls containing n 1s and m 0s has
probability (1/6)^n (5/6)^m, assuming each roll is independent and a
1 appears with prob. 1/6 and a 0 with prob. 5/6. You're asking whether
it is possible that (1/6)^n (5/6)^m = (1/6)^n' (5/6)^m' for some values
of n,n',m,m'. The answer is that equation holds only if n=n' and m=m'.
(Proof: Clear denominators by multiplying both sides by a large enough
power of 6. You'll find this equality can hold only if m=m'. Moreover,
since (1/6)^n = (1/6)^n' holds only if n=n', it follows that n=n', too.)
In short, two sequences are equiprobable only if they are of the same
length and contain the same number of 1s and the same number of 0s --
i.e., if and only if one sequence is a permuted version of the other.
|
| Show full article (3.01Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Joseph AshwoodJoseph Ashwood
Date: Nov 17, 2006 18:35
>
> Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>> [OTP is the most secure encryption algorithm]
>>> 2) In your opinion what do you thing are crutially important
>>> features/properties of a top of the line encription algorythm?
>>
>> Cryptographic strength. All other aspects are irrelevant.
>> Joe
>
> Obviously Cryptographyc strength is a nuimber one goal of a
> cryptosystem, but scoring one algorythm vs. another for cryptographic
> strength is a non-trivial task.
|
| Show full article (5.28Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
