|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Joseph AshwoodJoseph Ashwood
Date: Dec 19, 2006 21:09
"Peter Fairbrother" zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C1ADD9CF.D8C97%%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk...> Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
|
| Show full article (2.98Kb) |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: visions of efftyvisions of effty
Date: Dec 19, 2006 20:21
> What, Me Worry? wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> PROPOSITION 1:
>>> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
>>> ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>>>
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
>>> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
>>> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
>>> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
>>>
>>> PROPOSITION 2:
>>> A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6 ...
|
| Show full article (3.89Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: google98.emailgoogle98.email
Date: Dec 19, 2006 17:39
>-) ~-`-`- Amazing 5.5" Turd Cutter -' -'-~ (-<
Download http://turd-cutter.blogspot.com/ For woman and men ages 18-30
the amazing Turd Cutter 180 will dazzle your friends, family and loved
ones. Why do things the old fashioned way? The perfect christmas gift
for the man or woman that has everything.
90 Percent Environmentally friendly!
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Joseph AshwoodJoseph Ashwood
Date: Dec 19, 2006 16:44
> "Joseph Ashwood" msn.com> writes:>>> subsequent calls - shared secret.
>>
>> This does seem a bit redundant to me, since a PII-300 can perform a
>> 4096-bit
>> DH key exchange in less than a second,
>
> I read the OP's post as saying the shared secret was for
> authentication, not encryption. PRZ is aware of the benefits of
> forward secrecy for communications privacy.
That's true, I had failed to take that into account. I still wonder what
purpose it would serve except to increase the size of the executable and
source code.
Even reading Peter's response (next to be replied to) it seems pointless.
Joe
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Dec 19, 2006 16:23
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:44:12 +0000 (GMT), Paul Vigay
invalid-domain.co.uk> 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.
>
>Why don't you read properly. The original poster clearly said WTC 7. That's
>WTC Seven for those who can't count.
Yes, my bad. I apologize.
>WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane and was not under 'terror' attack. It was
>"pulled" by Larry Silverstein on Sept 11th (around 5.30pm I believe).
>
>Now... It takes weeks to rig a building for a controlled demolition - so
>how could they rig a building in less than 8 hours? AND, with all the other
>commotion going on across the street?
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Antony ClementsAntony Clements
Date: Dec 19, 2006 15:37
I have been examining an implementation of twofish written by someone who
has infinitely more crypto experience than i do, and i have come across a
problem. i am using an AMD fx53(1.8GHz), which granted, is really not
designed for anything other than gaming so it could be the processor that is
the variable in this equation. but it appears to me that when using twofish
to decode a string, it is considerably slower than the encoding. has anyone
else noticed that? Perhaps this is why Rijndael was chosen for the AES?
i'm going to reformat my old notebook (P4m 1.6GHz) and try the process on
that to see if it makes any difference.
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Scott FluhrerScott Fluhrer
Date: Dec 19, 2006 15:11
> Perhaps some elaboration helps: :-)
>
> Algorithms exist to compute x^s where x is publicly known and s is
> shared among a number of parties. For this computation no interaction
> between those parties is required.
>
> However, computing s^x, where s is shared and x is publicly known
> involves interaction between the parties sharing s. (At least in
> Shamir's scheme this is the case).
>
> Is there a scheme in which the secret s can be expressed as a product
> of the shares s[i] of this secret? Would such a scheme allow
> computation of s^x simply by having all parties privately compute
> s[i]^x?
Well, how about this one. I just through it together, so don't expect a
proof or anything -- you should be able to work that out for yourself.
|
| Show full article (3.89Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Dec 19, 2006 14:33
>You can generate a sequence of random bits using .NET generator and
>test how good it is; for example, using
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/ by John Walker.
Horseshit. Sorry for the language but you cannot test a stream for
"randomness". You can test a process, but that means you need to know how
the stream was generated. Once you have the bits, it is too late.
>-Aleksandr Yampolskiy.
>Mark Probert wrote:
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> Has anyone done any testing to find out how good the .Net pseudo-random
>> number generator class RNGCryptoServiceProvider is?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -mark.
|
| |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: UnruhUnruh
Date: Dec 19, 2006 14:31
>(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 (1.24Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: OGOG
Date: Dec 19, 2006 11:27
>> (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.
>>
>
> [CORRECTED MISPRINT]
>
> WTC 7 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 (1.15Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
