|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Wei DaiWei Dai
Date: Dec 18, 2006 22:34
> Ok, I think I have a simple attack that requires about 2^57 hash
> computations.
> I don't have much time to check this again right now. If you are
> interested I could send
> you my notes.
Please do, I'm certainly interested.
I sent a private request but did not get a response. If you already sent the
notes, it probably got lost due to spam filters. Can you please try again
using this web form here: http://ibiblio.org/weidai/mailme.php, or just post
your notes in this newsgroup. Email has become so unreliable now, sigh...
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Joseph AshwoodJoseph Ashwood
Date: Dec 18, 2006 20:03
There are a number of issues with this, I'll just take them from when I
first realized them, I will be chopping up what Peter said beyond all
recognition.
"Peter Fairbrother" zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C1AC5CC3.D89D8%%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk...> Zfone
> [no] PKI
> using DH
There is obviously a misunderstanding of the base concept here. Most likely
what has been mistakenly referred to as not PKI is the web-of-trust that
Zimmerman has used before, this is PKI. It is just that the WoT is usually
considered to fundamentally differ from the Hierarchical Trust System
commonly referred to as PKI, there is actually no such difference.
> subsequent calls - shared secret.
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
|
Author:
Date: Dec 18, 2006 16:30
> "It is sufficient at this time to understand that WTC7 was, indeed,
> collapsed deliberately ..."
>
> HAHAHAHA!!!! I LOVE reading you guys w/ my morning coffee. Nothin'
> like startin' the day w/ a good laugh!
How long before you get laid off from your disinfo job, Swampass?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: OGOG
Date: Dec 18, 2006 16:21
>
> (axolotl) wrote:
>> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
>> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
>> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
>> over 100 stories.
>>
>> What a joke.
>>
>> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
> WTC 7 which was a skyscraper a block away from the towers. It was 174
> meters in height and it came freefalling down in 6 seconds (see video
> in previous post).
>
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Dec 18, 2006 15:51
"Mike" writes:
>(axolotl) wrote:
>> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
>> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
>> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
>> over 100 stories.
>>
>> What a joke.
>>
>> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>>
>> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>>
>> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds. >hmmm.... that seems to make his case even stronger...
|
| Show full article (2.93Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: OGOG
Date: Dec 18, 2006 15:38
> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> over 100 stories.
>
> What a joke.
>
> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>
> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
WTC7 was one of the smaller buildings that surrounded the main WTC towers (1
& 2)
WTC7 was 174 metres tall.
>>If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
>>from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
>>logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Peter FairbrotherPeter Fairbrother
Date: Dec 18, 2006 14:49
D Jablon wrote:
> Regarding the hash commitment ...
>
> From what I've read, the authentication code derived
> from the DH key is short. More like a password than a
> passphrase. Without the hash pre-commitment, a
> middleman could negotiate two distinct DH sessions
> with Alice and Bob that share the same code.
>
> -- David
That makes sense, thanks.
-- Peter
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: D JablonD Jablon
Date: Dec 18, 2006 14:28
Regarding the hash commitment ...
>From what I've read, the authentication code derived
from the DH key is short. More like a password than a
passphrase. Without the hash pre-commitment, a
middleman could negotiate two distinct DH sessions
with Alice and Bob that share the same code.
-- David
On Dec 18, 9:57 am, Peter Fairbrother zen.co.uk> wrote:> Zfone is Phil Zimmerman's alterntive VOIP soution, avoiding the use of a PKI
> as in Skype.
>
> AIUI, it does end-to-end encryption using DH and a hash commitment (though
> the latter seems pointless to me). [...]
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TomTom
Date: Dec 18, 2006 12:12
I'm looking for someone who is experienced in digitally signing MS Word
documents (server side signing). IF you know how to do this because
you've done it before, call me at 847-924-2025 day or night. Regards,
...Tom Schmidt
High-level requirements:
1) Create a VB.net Web service
2) On a timer (timing set through code), service checks for IERS to
produce
3) Produces word Dig-Sig IERS (Integrated Evidentiary Resume System),
exactly as provided,
4) Digitally signs IERS
Service should be commented such that its easy enough to put in the SQL
statements to get information from the database
E.g.,
''' Here is where the contact information is created
objWord.InsertText 'Thomas Schmidt'
objWord.InsertText 'Address 1'
objWord.InsertText 'Etc'
''' Here is the loop to create the work experience
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
