| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 51824 | 2004-11-30 21:28:00 | Wireless Encryption mentioned in PCW | Chilling_Silence (9) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 298392 | 2004-12-02 00:11:00 | The trouble with a better encryption standard is that it needs to become a standard, so that everyone will use it. TCP/IP is a standard. That's how the Internet works. It's not perfect but it's pretty marvellous what it does do. It's not secure. But you can make reasonably secure systems which ride along on TCP/IP. WiFi has become widespread. It's not secure. If you want to run a secure private network, you need to use the WiFi stuff as a transport medium, with the knowledge that the packets you sent can be intercepted, and have the security in the packets. The Germans were sure that Enigma was a secure "protocol", so they could use radio communications. With a lot of money and brains, and luck, the other side managed to break a lot of the traffic. The Americans built a "secure" telephone link between Washington and London. There were 17 equipment racks at each of the sites. (Turing who saw this stuff was not impressed: "17 kW for 1 mW of speech, and it's not safe") Roosevelt and Churchill chatted away, and the German Post Office research labs listened in, unscrambled it, recording everything and sending the transcripts to Hitler. ;-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 298393 | 2004-12-02 00:28:00 | Is SSH too cumbersome for wireless? | Murray P (44) | ||
| 298394 | 2004-12-02 00:35:00 | >>The Americans built a "secure" telephone link between Washington and London . There were 17 equipment racks at each of the sites . (Turing who saw this stuff was not impressed: "17 kW for 1 mW of speech, and it's not safe") Roosevelt and Churchill chatted away, and the German Post Office research labs listened in, unscrambled it, recording everything and sending the transcripts to Hitler . Sounds like a hard case,Know of any sites that cover this incident? . . . i wouldn't mind reading up on it . |
metla (154) | ||
| 298395 | 2004-12-02 01:44:00 | See, SSH would work, but you cant do everything using SSH tunnels - Its a *****..... You want TOTALLY encrypted EVERYTHING..... ;-) ...not just one application. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 298396 | 2004-12-02 05:24:00 | Let's invent a great encryption method. Surely it would be do-able, making one that is truely secure (I use the word lightly). | george12 (7) | ||
| 298397 | 2004-12-02 05:46:00 | > See, SSH would work, but you cant do everything using > SSH tunnels - Its a ***** . . . . . > > You want TOTALLY encrypted EVERYTHING . . . . . ;-) > > . . . not just one application . Chill, is that the Royal You you used, meaning me as in me, or the common garden variety, meaning we as in you :D Just wanted that clarified so that no one lost any sleep over it ;) The only different with wireless communication, of the computer generated type, to that on a wire is just that isn't it! It hits the much the same machinery and protocols at either end and points in between . It's just a wee bit harder to tap into a wire without people being aware of what you are doing (excluding guvments and dogdie corp's with access) than it is to pluck a signal out of the ether, right! But don't they encrypt and scramble TV, satellite and various military signals . What's wrong with using that technology? Is there some difficulty in having and eating this cake, similar to SSH? |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 298398 | 2004-12-02 05:57:00 | Any "standard" protocol will move your information. It's up to you to protect that information. Any officially approved "secrecy" system will be wide open to the officials who approved it. Do you think that NSA didn't give MS advice on how to encrypt NTFS disks? Do you think that an encrypted NTFS will slow down anyone who wants to know whats on it? It's difficult to get a secure encryption. About the only known one is "one-time pads". |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 298399 | 2004-12-02 06:10:00 | > Any "standard" protocol will move your information . > It's up to you to protect that information . Any > officially approved "secrecy" system will be wide > open to the officials who approved it . Do you think > that NSA didn't give MS advice on how to encrypt > NTFS disks? Do you think that an encrypted NTFS > will slow down anyone who wants to know whats > on it? > > It's difficult to get a secure > encryption . About the only known one is "one-time > pads" . > Yes, I agree with you there Graham, but we're talking about an improvement in the security of wireless data which is a holy as swiss cheese at the moment . Something equivalent to the security of traditional transmission, can it be done? I also understand that what Chill and others want is to make direct connections, messaging, etc, secure which, are inherently less secure anyway than, say, transferring doc type files . Hence my cake comment . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 298400 | 2004-12-02 06:11:00 | I quite like Blowfish - Its nice and fast and secure - But what we're talking about here is pathetic.... Current encryption disgusts me! What we need is a streaming encryption algorithm that simply assumes that _everything_ right from the first packet is going to be intercepted!! Right now the current state of encryption is _no_ that great for Wireless by any means :( Im going wardriving tonight if I can get my new DSE WLAN USB Adaptor going with Gentoo :-) Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 298401 | 2004-12-02 06:22:00 | There will never be a _direct_ connection... run mtr on Google.co.nz and it goes through a good 7 or 8 connections before it gets there. And yes, Murray, I was meaning "you" as in you and me and the rest of the world in general :-) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||