| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 108181 | 2010-03-17 06:02:00 | Waihopai "SPY" base | Happy Harry (321) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 868006 | 2010-03-18 06:28:00 | The crown could have easily proved the defenses case useless, by simply proving Waihopai base isn't involved in what the defendants say. The crowns silence kind of proves the defendants a right. On a side note, I don't condone what these three did, I just find it highly amusing their can admit to something and the crown aren't bright enough to get a conviction |
plod (107) | ||
| 868007 | 2010-03-19 13:20:00 | WHY. Don't ask him awkward questions. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 868008 | 2010-03-19 20:50:00 | According to the Herald they scan emails and telecons for key words. Surely if you were a terrorist these days you would be on to it and use an unbreakable code in your communications. Rendering these listening posts redundant. I dont buy into the concept that any code can be broken these days thats why the govt is not keen on encrypted emails they want a law ordering you to give them a code if they ask. So some codes must be unbreakable. The allies didnt really break the enigma code they just got the codes. . Bearing in mind someones terrorists is someones elses freedom fighter. For instance in WW2 the french resistance would have been called terrorists by the germans, hungarians and vichy but freedom fighters by the allies. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 868009 | 2010-03-19 21:37:00 | Very few codes are 'unbreakable', they can all be brute-forced. Sure it might take several million years, but it doesn't matter. The only unbreakable code that springs to mind is the One-time pad (en.wikipedia.org). Also worth note is the Feige-Fiat-Shamir Identification Scheme (en.wikipedia.org). |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 868010 | 2010-03-19 21:42:00 | There are more unbreakable codes beside that; just try extracting any intelligence from Government pronouncements. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 868011 | 2010-03-19 21:51:00 | Very few codes are 'unbreakable', they can all be brute-forced. Sure it might take several million years, but it doesn't matter. The only unbreakable code that springs to mind is the One-time pad (en.wikipedia.org). Also worth note is the Feige-Fiat-Shamir Identification Scheme (en.wikipedia.org). Thats quite interesting, never heard of it before. Wouldnt the ability of a pc computer to generate lots of random numbers make the code unbreakable before the sun runs out of hydrogen and dies. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 868012 | 2010-03-20 04:58:00 | Wouldnt the ability of a pc computer to generate lots of random numbers make the code unbreakable before the sun runs out of hydrogen and dies. Oh yes, but there are groups out there with the facilities to break those codes much, much faster, like distributed.net and, you know, the NSA. It's very, very easy to just throw more bits at an encryption alg, and it will become more secure, but the idea is to get the best possible security with the least amount of bits. For example, distributed.net is currently taking on RC5, which has a 72-bit key length. It's been processing RC5 for 2,000+ days, and has only gone through 0.7% of the key space. Sure, that's alot of time to go through every possible key, but due to the design of RC5, it's the only real way to break it. RC4, on the other hand, has been broken for a while, yet it can have between 40 and 256 bits. Hell, AES (the current gold standard) has only 128 bits IIRC. More bits (or rounds) don't mean more security. |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 868013 | 2010-03-20 08:05:00 | Absolutely fascinating geekster | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||