- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

What is Intel® Core™ vPro™ Technology Animation
by d.nix 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hah hah hah. Uh, reading between the lines, color me *skeptical* that this is really what it claims to be, given the current understanding of things... http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/enterprise-security/what-is-vpro-tec… - --- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSPlBtAAoJEDMbeBxcUNAe5RIH/iIG/149Nbaho+v8ni2lMr2T CD0VRErhdcYbqedBgHvP6cCTtErS9u2EeeVKA2yOHtZJg4FXgTWGsxGGA8vTkUYK 6NhK+HJqt7g4s0x+xSdE2nAmD0ib/94PubSOqgG1suyziqai2iRLoi9XkMaNQuX0 rIdnq6ieVA2aXCB+zK1mYWrn4ugoF9xsijlkoYm2kYkUA0a1/HlyVx880mKj2BGz b0aJNZeL3+EDubZ2tcsc93azeREethJesqBRDjAuY8StHWEaxFjqtlqqLGZbowUE hRbxOQ9vsrhy/9W4CCN3TIwT1RSh+5NjJ6JSq8GNkcPzYeZjsYSLmcHBKiGNbJE= =xwfm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [8] code observatory
by brian carroll 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

are you the fuckhead who BSOD my computer and took it down after my first cypherpunks post? (if you are you better watch out- you're in trouble...) On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi(a)hexapodia.org> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 07:08:58PM -0500, brian carroll wrote: > > --- continued... --- > > Do you really believe that the 55,000 words you've posted to the list > over the last two weeks, with exactly one reply, is considered a > valuable contribution by other list members? > > -andy >

3 2

Re: [Cryptography] What is Intel® Core™ vPro™ Technology Animation
by d.nix 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/22/2013 2:23 PM, Jerry Leichter wrote: > On Sep 21, 2013, at 10:05 PM, d.nix wrote: >> Hah hah hah. Uh, reading between the lines, color me *skeptical* >> that this is really what it claims to be, given the current >> understanding of things... >> >> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/enterprise-security/what-is-vpro-tec… > >> The question isn't whether it's what it claims to be. It is that. But is it's *more* than it claims to be. > Yes, in my haste I neglected the "only" disclaimer bit; it is indeed a means by which the *rightful owner/administrator* might perform very useful tasks. The obvious crux of the biscuit is *who else* has access, and what can they do surreptitiously? If for example, the paper regarding manipulating the RNG circuit by alternate chip doping is valid, then an adversary with deep pockets and vast resources might well be able remotely target specific systems on demand. Possibly even air gapped ones if this function is controllable via a 3G signal as I have read elsewhere. Or perhaps just outright reroute and tap information prior to encryption, or subtly corrupt things in other ways such that processes fail or leak data. A universal on-demand STUXNET, if you will... Yes, idle unfounded speculation, I know... but still... these days the fear is that we're not paranoid enough. Hmmmm. Maybe time to pull my old 1996 SGI R10K and R4400 boxes out of storage. For a few *very* dedicated and air gapped tasks they might be a small measure of worthwhile trouble. Regards, DN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSP4OfAAoJEDMbeBxcUNAeVmUH/3MRSd/QkH9J/fY4iezSX/ME 2AbXaRSJmyLhZPW/c+moH0aUYAIPUQQ3JmVt0InZWM06jrR0pO/I9GxIM9IUWYM7 /6u/NLUcdiDtJx+BLcyUdtqSpYErkWQH9qoWxunDtUUj988xxTgia1Q+yN0h+ZOg 6PJtXB8+fTAGSoRCkhuokitB/XGbMFgAxtIyq2CMVSr3v0fOGCItvEq2wVzw8+h1 o0ps90OE3RLnel6u4YNm5EFRWoDiwN45+u/wGdXHJlSUZrncX1o6NsGvSC/0Pl94 7CYF7qpeltMMzpgPrp0IeWrls/G89FdOnjD97nzcCQ480RZAfpYCNXOIBURXq+I= =SUzc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [cryptography] Dual_EC_DRBG was cooked, but not AES?
by Eugen Leitl 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from ianG <iang(a)iang.org> ----- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:39:36 +0300 From: ianG <iang(a)iang.org> To: cryptography(a)randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] Dual_EC_DRBG was cooked, but not AES? User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 On 22/09/13 16:05 PM, Ed Stone wrote: > Why has AES escaped general suspicion? Are we to believe that NIST tested, selected, endorsed and promulgated an algorithm that was immune to NSA's toolset, without NSA participation and approval? NSA involvement in DES is known, but we await cryptanalysis or Snowdenesque revelations before having skepticism about AES? NIST didn't really "test, select, endorse and promulgate" the AES algorithm, and neither did the NSA. The process was a competition for open cryptographers, not agencies. It was done this way because we strongly suspected DES interference. Some 30 algorithms were accepted in the first round, and subject to a year or so worth of scrutiny by the same submitting teams. This then led to a second round of 5 competitors and another long-ish period of aggressive scrutiny. The scrutiny was quite fierce because the reputations of the winners would be made, so the 5 teams did their darndest to undermine the competition. Many famous names were hoping for the prize. It is the case that NIST (and probably the NSA) selected Rijndael from the 5 finalists. But they did so on the basis of a lot of commentary, and all the critics was agreed that all 5 were secure [0]. So, claiming that the NSA perverted the AES competition faces a much higher burden. They would have had to have done these things: * pervert some of the early teams, * pervert the selection process to enable their stooges through, * and designed something that escaped the aggressive scrutiny of the losers. It's possible, but much harder to get away with. In contrast, with the DRBG adventure, NSA designed the process, and tacked it onto a more internal NIST standards process. Little or minimal scrutiny from outside, and little or minimal perversion of outsiders necessary in the standardisation phase (but that did come later). iang [0] At the time, myself and my team followed it, and we predicted that Rijndael would be the winner ... just by reading all the comments. Note we weren't serious cryptographers, but we provided the Java framework for the competition, so it was a _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

[cryptography] Dual_EC_DRBG was cooked, but not AES?
by Eugen Leitl 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Ed Stone <temp(a)synernet.com> ----- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:05:06 -0400 From: Ed Stone <temp(a)synernet.com> To: cryptography(a)randombit.net Subject: [cryptography] Dual_EC_DRBG was cooked, but not AES? X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) The Snowden revelations describe several methods by which NSA committed kleptography, caused compliance by hardware makers and influenced standards. Why has AES escaped general suspicion? Are we to believe that NIST tested, selected, endorsed and promulgated an algorithm that was immune to NSA's toolset, without NSA participation and approval? NSA involvement in DES is known, but we await cryptanalysis or Snowdenesque revelations before having skepticism about AES? "On 17 March 1975, the proposed DES was published in the Federal Register. Public comments were requested, and in the following year two open workshops were held to discuss the proposed standard. There was some criticism from various parties, including from public-key cryptography pioneers Martin Hellman and Whitfield Diffie,[2] citing a shortened key length and the mysterious "S-boxes" as evidence of improper interference from the NSA. The suspicion was that the algorithm had been covertly weakened by the intelligence agency so that they — but no-one else — could easily read encrypted messages.[3] Alan Konheim (one of the designers of DES) commented, "We sent the S-boxes off to Washington. They came back and were all different."[4] The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the NSA's actions to determine whether there had been any improper involvement. In the unclassified summary of their findings, published in 1978, the Committee wrote: In the development of DES, NSA convinced IBM that a reduced key size was sufficient; indirectly assisted in the development of the S-box structures; and certified that the final DES algorithm was, to the best of their knowledge, free from any statistical or mathematical weakness.[5] However, it also found that NSA did not tamper with the design of the algorithm in any way. IBM invented and designed the algorithm, made all pertinent decisions regarding it, and concurred that the agreed upon key size was more than adequate for all commercial applications for which the DES was intended.[6]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard "On September 10 2013, The New York Times wrote that "internal memos leaked by a former N.S.A. contractor, Edward Snowden, suggest that the N.S.A. generated one of the random number generators used in a 2006 N.I.S.T. standard — called the Dual EC DRBG standard — which contains a backdoor for the NSA." On September 10 2013, The NIST director released a statement, saying that "NIST would not deliberately weaken a cryptographic standard."" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG "A major American computer security company has told thousands of customers to stop using an encryption system that relies on a mathematical formula developed by the National Security Agency (NSA). RSA, the security arm of the storage company EMC, sent an email to customers telling them that the default random number generator in a toolkit for developers used a weak formula, and they should switch to one of the other formulas in the product. The abrupt warning is the latest fallout from the huge intelligence disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden about the extent of surveillance and the debasement of encryption by the NSA. Last week, the New York Times reported that Snowden's cache of documents from his time working for an NSA contractor showed that the agency used its public participation in the process for setting voluntary cryptography standards, run by the government's National Institute of Standards (NIST) and Technology, to push for a formula it knew it could break. Soon after that revelation, the NIST began advising against the use of one of its cryptographic standards and, having accepted the NSA proposal in 2006 as one of four systems acceptable for government use, said it would reconsider that inclusion in the wake of questions about its security." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/21/rsa-emc-warning-encryption-sys… _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [cryptography] [Cryptography] RSA equivalent key length/strength
by Eugen Leitl 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from ianG <iang(a)iang.org> ----- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 15:32:42 +0300 From: ianG <iang(a)iang.org> To: cryptography(a)randombit.net Subject: Re: [cryptography] [Cryptography] RSA equivalent key length/strength User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 On 19/09/13 00:23 AM, Lucky Green wrote: > According to published reports that I saw, NSA/DoD pays $250M (per > year?) to backdoor cryptographic implementations. I have knowledge of > only one such effort. That effort involved DoD/NSA paying $10M to a > leading cryptographic library provider to both implement and set as > the default the obviously backdoored Dual_EC_DRBG as the default RNG. So, boom. Once the finger is pointed so directly, this came tumbling down within a day or two. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/stop-using-nsa-influence-code-in-ou… http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/the-many-flaws-of-dualecdrb… One mystery is left for me. Why so much? It clearly doesn't cost that much money to implement the DRBG, or if it did, I would have done it for $5m, honest injun! Nor would it cost that to test it nor to deploy it on mass. Documentation, etc. What are we to conclude was the reason for such a high cost? Conscience sedative? Internal payoffs? > This was $10M wasted. While this vendor may have had a dominating > position in the market place before certain patents expired, by the > time DoD/NSA paid the $10M, few customers used that vendor's > cryptographic libraries. Another theory - take a fool's money? And, what happens to RSA now? If this is business-as-usual, does this mean that when the Feds show up to my door with 'a proposal' that I should see the mutual interest in sharing my customer's data with them by means ecliptic & exotic? Take the 30 pieces of silver (adj. for 2000 years of inflation), and be happy they're also keeping my struggling business in the black? Or grey? Or, is it the new Crypto AG? Is RSA the new byword for sellout? Does RSA go out of business? An Arthur Anderson event? In which case I have no choice. I have a reason to preserve the privacy of my customers, and tell the NSA I'm not interested in their cyanide pill patriotism. iang _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Cryptography Inevitable Failure
by John Young 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Nothing more useful for spies than widely trusted cryptosystems. Nor do they ever reveal cracking the highly reputable. Neither confirm nor deny. They do leak vulns, participate in standards settings earnestly and lackadasiacly, fund good and bad research, buy good and bad systems, hire good and bad staff and contractors, engage in open and secret enterprises, issue truthful and false statements, advise and mislead political leaders in public and in secret briefings, claim to obey civilian leaders and disobey them. As Hallam-Baker reported, NSA when confronted with A and B choices, select both. This obligatory duplicity is avowed necessary to conceal what is good and what is bad, both classified for deception. Presumably there is stash of comsec revelations pre-positioned for implementation as needs arise and also when needs do not arise. Duality, duplicity, duping, is the lifeblood and poison of security as well as insecurity, neither ying nor yang can exist without the other. Paranoia sustains information assurance. AES will succumb when the time is ripe for a newborn. Perhaps the time was ripe for Snowden to midwife the inevitable failure of NSA and ilk. Recall NSA's 1997 paper on the inevitable failure of computer security. Imagine a similar one on encryption awaiting disclosure. Imagine what would replace encryption as the duplicitor of choice. Then scale up. Imagine what will replace over-centralized, over-grown, unmanageable NSA and its mushrooming gaga'd critics. Not DIRNSAs retiring to shyster duties, cryptographers gone fat feeding marketable personnas, not Alice, Bob and Chelsea, not NRL-dudes rigging the Tor 3-card monte, not end to end rotted MITM and at both ends, not anything once daring and taunting like cryptoanarchy, not prize winning WikiLeaks and granting EFF, not fleecing fat cats and fans for FOI liberation and forever elusive privacy, not spooning bits of spy feces into yawning mouths of readers. Then scale down to non-secret means and methods accessible to everyone. Even the end of official spying and its inevitable corruption of government by out of control secrecy and dependency upon the toolmakers of secret comsec. But can cryptographers imagine the end of cryptography or are they as bone-headedly duplicitous as those who pay them to promote paranoia, secrecy, distrust and protection. At 09:39 AM 9/22/2013, you wrote: >On 22/09/13 16:05 PM, Ed Stone wrote: >>Why has AES escaped general suspicion? Are we to believe that NIST >>tested, selected, endorsed and promulgated an algorithm that was >>immune to NSA's toolset, without NSA participation and approval? >>NSA involvement in DES is known, but we await cryptanalysis or >>Snowdenesque revelations before having skepticism about AES? > > >NIST didn't really "test, select, endorse and promulgate" the AES >algorithm, and neither did the NSA. > >The process was a competition for open cryptographers, not >agencies. It was done this way because we strongly suspected DES interference. > >Some 30 algorithms were accepted in the first round, and subject to >a year or so worth of scrutiny by the same submitting teams. This >then led to a second round of 5 competitors and another long-ish >period of aggressive scrutiny. The scrutiny was quite fierce >because the reputations of the winners would be made, so the 5 teams >did their darndest to undermine the competition. Many famous names >were hoping for the prize. > >It is the case that NIST (and probably the NSA) selected Rijndael >from the 5 finalists. But they did so on the basis of a lot of >commentary, and all the critics was agreed that all 5 were secure [0]. > >So, claiming that the NSA perverted the AES competition faces a much >higher burden. They would have had to have done these things: > > * pervert some of the early teams, > * pervert the selection process to enable their stooges through, > * and designed something that escaped the aggressive scrutiny > of the losers. > >It's possible, but much harder to get away with. > >In contrast, with the DRBG adventure, NSA designed the process, and >tacked it onto a more internal NIST standards process. Little or >minimal scrutiny from outside, and little or minimal perversion of >outsiders necessary in the standardisation phase (but that did come later). > > > >iang > > > >[0] At the time, myself and my team followed it, and we predicted >that Rijndael would be the winner ... just by reading all the >comments. Note we weren't serious cryptographers, but we provided >the Java framework for the competition, so it was a >_______________________________________________ >cryptography mailing list >cryptography(a)randombit.net >http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

1 0

Fwd: Chaos theory
by Collin RM Stocks 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Sorry that this question is only tangentially related to cryptography. Then again, a lot of the stuff here is only tangentially related. Could anybody here link me to some good resources on chaos theory? I'm not looking for anything specifically about certain chaotic systems (like the Lorentz Attractor or Chua's circuit), but instead about general methods to identify and evaluate chaotic systems. Maybe something related to calculating fractional dimensions, &c. This would be a great help. Thanks, // Collin -- VAQIiCiFqqG09YDAYW3rTAUtZqnwNoZkb/ZPm/so4t/CBKQbkMfYL5nujXRI 6+v5Doa2f+X1c9kAUXxElM+B0vrFUCu54tkYyDoi9fzDJB7oLag6Gj+sqoyM kgbVGy3Ej1YnbY/11Rys/WIarJN6CsQCyI3lZPm6a7SgAvAzroSXwH1GkQuS MinnS7/RybV3mKp7fMM0NwWqi6FLkLbjZUKAQC1m7nJHmaApGbu2/YOdFXHJ 3DXmVa2HTtANZEER5tD9W0pYn1gxor98wKY/lkFAy+kCohuZi0bgVgOgRDgg xhRYHAMkmlSyjuK1TRj7e6nuAcvSAVVrAH+n+nSOxA==

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [liberationtech] Fwd: Firefox OS with built in support for OpenPGP encryption
by Eugen Leitl 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> ----- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:07:00 -0700 From: David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> To: Patrick Georgi <patrick(a)georgi-clan.de> Cc: Coreboot <coreboot(a)coreboot.org> Subject: Re: [coreboot] [liberationtech] Fwd: Firefox OS with built in support for OpenPGP encryption > > Both of these boxes let you reflash your system firmware with your > >> custom build of BSD-licensed TianoCore UEFI. >> > BSD-licensed TianoCore + heaps of binary modules that are currently only > available under NDA. > They'd also require some additional code (probably binary only?) to make > Tiano resembling something like a complete and secure implementation. And as far as FOSS firmware development goes, Gizmo Board ( http://www.gizmosphere.org/why-gizmo/gizmoboard/) is far superior and actually ships with fully functioning open source firmware derived from coreboot. No blobs, no restrictive licensing. > <soapbox> >> There is a large OEM/ODM/IBV/IHV/ISV ecosystem that currently runs the >> hardware, and it is UEFI-centric. IMO, focusing only on fringe >> Lemote/Coreboot technology is not a good bet. >> > coreboot is your only bet on x86 if you aim for open source firmware. It > can be combined with TianoCore to provide the UEFI APIs to the user (read: > Operating System), but TianoCore alone won't do since it lacks hardware > initialization drivers (that coreboot provides). Indeed. TianoCore is not a full firmware implementation -- It usually sits atop a layer cake of non-free / binary components that do the actual work of initializing the hardware. As Patrick points out, Coreboot running with TianoCore on top as a payload can accomplish what you seem to be asking for. There has been substantial work done here already, so if you *really* need UEFI services you can work on polishing it up: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4ODU -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

2 1

[9] patterns and randomness
by brian carroll 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

// again, disclaimer: observations of a naive observer... --- on pattern matching --- there is a significant difference between evaluations that search for recognizable patterns and structures based on relativistic pseudo-truth versus empirical models of truth, removed of falsity. in the former, a pattern match thus verifies pT=pT in some way that retains the error rate as part of its structural assumption though likewise could be considered true by default of the match. in this way the [sign] itself becomes the truth, as if the pattern itself is true, an accurate model. it is thus possible for an ungrounded viewpoint to be validated via pattern recognition and *believe* in the legitimacy of the model because it is able to locate and recognize and categorize patterns, validating the approach. that it works confirms that what it is doing is true, as an assumption. statistics and mathematical modeling often can validate this as forms of 'objective reasoning' that are themselves likewise ungrounded, as if an approximate algorithm is by default removed of its estimations or need for ambiguity and via binary 'reason' these inaccuracies can be denied and-or discarded from questioning the approach itself, the error rate relied upon and becoming structural to sustain the viewpoint, functioning as belief. [sign] = [sign] equated with truth the point is that the sign could be ungrounded, weakly or inaccurately modeled, and thus a rounding error or observational bias is involved... [pT.sign] = [T.sign] via pattern match a quick way of saying it is that there is some unaccounted for subjectivity involved (a=b) yet also ignored that presumes A=A is the evaluative result. the issue appears to be that the [sign] itself is arbitrary to an extent, and does not require investigation beyond its context in language for the observation to be considered true- seemingly that a concept represented as a sign effectively is equated with what it is meant to signify, therefore it may not actually have external truth outside of the language system that instead functions as if this truth. the pattern match is with the [sign] that is the word, not what the word references, because the word can be viewed as its truth. that would be a worst-case confusion, lack of rigor to the point that this distinction is not being made, allowing the shallow or weak correlations to exist. at the very least 'computers' could do this, though likely many a person could likewise who does it think it through further or allows ideological presumption to take hold of observation by default of existing structures, without correcting for errors or ambiguity. an empirical evaluation in contrast would secure the [sign] in relation to truth firstly, thus when a pattern is match, this match does accurately correlate with truth, the concept having been removed of known errors. [T.sign] = [T.sign] via pattern match although again it must be said this remains contingent and in a realm of the grey area, within the middle N value (1-N-0) in either a 3-value or N-value paradoxical evaluation, tending towards absolute truth yet bounded by worldly limits to only allow a high percentage or reliability (nine nines) and thus the binary 1/0 instead may function as a sliding scale, in that it may be effectively '1' yet never absolute, always contingent and always returning to a state of perpetual questioning, testing of hypotheses against new evidence and additional structuring. thus a match is still not 'absolute truth' -- instead it is an extreme likelihood and highly weighted toward truth, yet upon further investigation or data could be overturned as an observation if the model is somehow flawed and thus error corrected. in this way a failsafe exists in the observation allowing for correction, whereas a binary model (either/or) would not be able to make this change after having decided its state, or if it did it could break the entire worldview whereas for a paradoxical weighted approach it seems much more likely that a paradigm shift would rearrange or reconfigure the perspective and that it would be possible to do this within a malleable framework that is capable of handling ambiguity, unknowing, multiple hypotheses at once. and perhaps what this indicates is that a [sign] for paradoxical pattern matching may exist in superposition, in various different configurations by this probabilistic weighting, and only over time resolve the overlapping or contrasting dynamics- which then would indicate a field of its inquiry, versus a binary approach that would choose one interpretation over another while discarding its validity within the model, or so it is assumed. and perhaps this last aspect of superposition is a new take on synthesis as it relates to the paradox of theses and antitheses for a given [sign], that logical reasoning mediates this condition via panoptic observation. --- on turning --- this is speculation though i have a strong intuitive sense that forcing a binary ideological structure into a paradoxical condition would in turn double everything that exists in that system, via the new codebase. (?!) another way to say it is that the pT.1 of binary observers would exist in a context of truth (T) of empirical observation and the removal of error will destroy the ideological structure needed to maintain pT.1 as if absolute truth, thus forcing it into recognition as a partial view, pseudo, while incapacitating the false ideological structures that prop up the viewpoint, such as invalid or false assumptions. in its minor state, pT.1 can no longer determine shared truth in the larger empirical context, for others and must submit to the larger interpretive framework and shared context, insofar as it is valid and legitimate and removed of errors. In this way the binary observer _must accept 'other truth' that accounts for the larger totality of truth (T), that is pT.2, pT.3...pT.N, and thus everything that is T minus pT.1, which could be this doubling of truth that must in turn be mediated beyond the binary constraints. If the observer is unwilling or unable to do this, they would be incapacitated in logical reasoning with other observers insights as a shared model, to uphold an ideological POV. yet if they accept it, their minor truth by comparison is limited in controlling the interpretation and thus forces a compliance with truth that in effect no longer allows the old presumptions and positions to be retained. if this was a ploy, internal contradictions would likely be noticeable or a fakeness in this process. It probably could not be very well mimicked though if it were, could only last so long before tension between competing views internal and external caused psychic collapse. it is to say that without 'grounding' in truth, or its actual observation, that 'going along with things' in a paradoxical framework without truly believing in the process, recognizing truth in such a way, could be a self destructive process if the person remained binarist, and this intolerable conflicting position between logics could force submission due to madness of having once all powerful observations instead become minimal at best in a larger framework, if psychologically unable to see beyond the self's POV. to try to defeat the larger truth the binarist would have to maintain two versions of truth, while being able to externally reason in their biased framework with others, or rely on false frameworks for their evaluations. it should be readily evident and easy to discern this kind of deception because binary rationalization would be the governing OS of the person, even though they may say or indicate otherwise by following, mimicry. --- questions on random --- basic electronic circuit with reversed diode for noise. wondering if size of diode has been correlated to noise patterns-- does a larger diode generate more randomness. is there any boundary issue for randomness. it would seem like there would be for linear algorithms versus parallel sets. for instance, if it were analogous, imagine an aquarium is a smaller diode and a swimming pool is a much larger diode. and the same effect is going to be used in both to test for randomness of numbers. how would their output be compared and evaluated in the same terms, and is it related in any way to the size or boundary of the diode itself, as to randomness generated. here is why it seems like it might. if dropping a rock into an aquarium there would be a splash and waves would immediately start as the rock sinks to the bottom and thus the boundary condition would influence how much this outside interaction effects the inside equilibrium. in that higher waves may form and multiple, if not causing a local splash, and the structure inside the aquarium could be altered by rock entering its domain. throwing the same rock into a swimming pool may not have similar effects at the larger scale, it may sink further to the bottom yet not disrupt anything else at that scale, and the waves it makes may be minor compared with the smaller closed environment. whatever influence it may have on the equilibrium would appear to be much less of a disruption or influence. then consider throwing the same rock in the middle of the ocean which may have large waves already and it may not sink for a long time compared to the other two environments, and it may have negligible effect on wave creation and may never effect the outer boundary, essentially 'infinity' in comparison to the aquarium or swimming pool. and thus it may no discernible effect on the structure that may exist or be considered random, even though it may have some influence, because it is so infinitesimal. in this way it is to ask if the 'bounds' or region of randomness may be related to what is accessed or output as randomness, also in relation to accessing this state externally or interacting with it, as an influence. now perhaps this is not an accurate correlation, though i thought i read or heard mention of various approaches to gleaning information from closed if not blackbox systems via external diagnostic evaluations seemingly similar in nature, where a signal may be injected into a realm and read back to learn of its internal functioning, structure or timing that could be used to gain access or subvert its operation. and in my naive mind i relate that to throwing the rock into the bounded environment and monitoring its trajectory, what is known about it, and using this perhaps in a way like a random number generator. if structure of randomness is discernible whatever that mystery is in the box (aquarium, etc) is assumed to be bad for generating numbers because it could be used to compromise the security of cryptographic algorithms. and so if someone were to evaluate the water (numbers generated) and they could somehow discern a bounded condition that forced patterns somehow, that would compromise the number generation. or, what if a diode could have an electromagnet placed next to it and align force fields somehow that would change the structure of what is generated, yet this may not be detectable on a circuit board or in an unseen encased or protected device. and while this is foolish to consider from this naive perspective, without any knowledge or likely inaccurate assumptions and faulty framework that does not correlate with the issues -- it is to wonder still if it might have something to do with a linear approach to this computation that is requiring of 'no discernible structure' as an a priori constraint. for instance, what if multiple bit sets queried the diode state for numbers simultaneously and their interaction was randomized atop the diode return values, or that these were mapped to 0-9 and not just 0/1 for numbers. or what if it were possible to do this fast enough such that various sized randomized numbers could be input into a running stream, such as 1 to 12 variables stitched on after another with concurrent randomness. or multiple diodes in an array which could be queried both in serial and parallel and return 'variable' output that may again randomly stream into a string (or a bit string, if each output were to become a set in a running bit superset). if someone could influence the operation of those devices, could they still access the cryptographic secrets of the algorithms or could defenses exist in the construction and access of randomness that separates these systems. in a parallel approach why must structure be assume to be a default exploit for knowing the computational structure if it is actually arbitrary and to me in terms of bit sets and calculating multiple infinities, this is an issue seemingly equivalent with the rock and the ocean. whatever local structure that rock may encounter or microscopic wave does not indicate it will be able to discern overall structure of the infinite boundary. you could throw a million rocks in and it still may not have any compromising effect on whatever detail or area or structure the computation resides in in a temporal shifting structure that may or may not be 'on' or accessible in a given interaction- and thus repeated targeting against randomness may not reveal any greater insight into particular messaging in the infinity context, or so it is proposed, if 'vertical' computation is involved. this fool does not realize how foolish they are to consider such questions so it is funny for me, to neither know nor care how ridiculous this is. the ragged presumption then is that infinity calculations could function as a type of 'mystery box' that computation and encryption occurs within and that randomness is part of this, yet structure within randomness may not indicate what is or what is not encrypted in that particular approach. it would seemingly offer randomness, even if structure exists, because whatever is accessed would be so minor compared to its interior boundary. if you have multiple sets as a starting point and each has a potential for infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, that involves far greater randomness than a string of binary digits made arbitrary. and it cannot be easily accounted for by an algorithm, to decipher its meaning, if that is indeed its basis for randomness because the algorithm could be random, as with the output, within certain parameters. anything x anything + anything / anything = context. what computer is capable of figuring that out, prior to accessing the crypto code, and doing it repeatedly in real-time in an ever changing array of numbers and autogenerated code, variables upon variables. it would seem even an issue of forensics would be no good, as it could be arbitrary, non-repeating and repeating structures that may or may not be active or reappear again, themselves shifting or within structures that open up or close or phase change. maybe a part of a structure is part of number, touches upon it, and yet that is it. if it is a random would it in any way indicate the structure it is related to or would it be arbitrary and thus like looking for a skull in a sand dune based on a ridge that was formed on one day and gone the next, yet not knowing where the skull is. so while the serial approach seems to seek out noise, the parallel bit set approach appears to exist within the noise as a default condition and may involve a different realm of questions and new assumptions. processing noise, ubiquitous noise, contextless needles. localized skews, uncorrected shotglass scenarios. potentially 1,000s of permutations of encrypting code -- because it is of an empirical 'many' versus 2 or 3 or 5 layered crypto approaches. another analogy might be a cloud chamber, wherein if a serial string or crypto algorithm may be broken if those fleeting cosmic rays were somehow to momentarily light up and reveal a hidden structure via this interaction. and yet the detachment of multiple sets in a bit string may not readily be recognized as a totality because it could occupy more noise than the cosmic rays introduce into the system or may not work-back to a solution for the shared framework if it were generated randomly or disconnected from the output in its arbitrary range of meaning- the boundary where signal may exist nested in the structure of noise yet not be readily differentiated as a single structure or active unless those dots are connected or revealed, which encryption could seemingly hide and would require a key to decrypt. as if the entire cloud chamber would need to be decrypted, potentially, by brute force, and thus throwing every externality into the interior realm yet it could expand infinitely and still not reveal what is on its inside. or so that is what a conceptualization of nested sets appears to indicate, when in a noisy, randomly generated environment, signaling not overt. a monkey-typewriter situation, any probing potentially to reveal meaning. maybe the mystery box has produced shakespeare upon a dictionary search or query, and an elaborate false universe opens up, a portal that instead could be activated and sustained as a false corridor and then be made operational with doubling and turning of those trapped inside the mirror, containing and parallelizing the reality, merging yet bounding its action. thus, probabilities in context of nested infinities could remain unknowns and unstable. querying the arbitrary data set as randomizer would generate its own internal meaning, may or may not be connected to other frameworks, yet ever changing, irrespective of decrypting interpretation. therefore, a stone thrown into this realm could create its own data yet may not have any structural effect on what already exists as it exists, or it may access some angle or detail of a shared framework yet within another perspective or meaning and thus bounded in another use of the same signage, via not knowing what is activated or not in a given moment. why is the RNG not of cloud code formation, such that: RNG = [N1][N2][N3]...[N^n] => # such that: N = 0 -> infinity (or any calculative function or sign or computation, randomized) this would create a noise ocean, versus a string of binary bits in terms of a generating structure (seemingly aquarium, in terms of potentially being able to manipulate the environment to create effects to subvert it). --- cloud formations --- to me the issue of encountering a recognizable pattern or symbol formed of clouds in in the sky provides a context for the issue of bounded infinity and its interpretation by an observer. if the universe (U) was considered the largest boundary, and of all the clouds that may be referenced, it is only the set in certain encounters that provide this meaningful connection, only a limit portion of the sky at a limited time and duration, and involves weather patterns, quality of light, types of clouds, and also the particular observational framework that provides meaning or links to the symbolism. thus in the set of all clouds it is only a specific cloud code that has this function, and if it is not determined by the observer, it may even appear arbitrary from their perspective. thus in cloudspace only some clouds are code like this, and it is very small portion given all the clouds in the sky, for a particular observer. cloudspace (clouds {code}) now it may be possible that the generation of cloud code is not arbitrary and this reverse-engineering of individual perspective could deliver a meaningful cloud formation on demand as if by a script, so an observer may see in a given instance a given symbol that may not be noticed by others or be perceived meaningful, except by the observer in a particular framework. and thus a forced perspective of a sort could format the sky in such a way and thus write this symbolism into the environment, via magic seemingly. how it occurs beyond the boundary, observational limits and threshold of understanding of the observer, and yet there it is, decrypted as it were from the other surrounding clouds yet if reliant on a time and unique perspective (ID) it may not be noticed by others or be recognized as having meaning that may instead have heightened significance in a given moment. and thus the cloud could, as a sign, relay a signal and communicate ideas and information this way. (the comparison with a realm of interior infinities is that it would be entirely populated by recognizable fragments and 'clouds of meaning', as if a particulate gas that is held together by various atmospheric charge and that can be combined or separated and recombine with others layers, and that universe upon universe of cloud formations could be mapped out, and may be ever changing, including if patterns included weather-like flows of data that transform or shift the interior context or keep it destabilized.) a man in the middle attack for looking up at the sky and instead of a state of nature, the clouds could be formed within a simulation of nature and thus the clouds may be data objects that can be manipulated as [signs] of nature, representing nature, yet not actually nature themselves, only images, substitutions. the Wizard of Oz scenario, earth populated by robotic pigeons. the messages could be transmitted in a false POV and false framework, and thus involve a deception that could lead a person to doom. 'the mystery box' contains both scenarios, potentially. allowing for both the open extension into the hidden uncompressed domain that could be developed as an interiority, mapping out infinity structures, and it could also function as a boundary space that is a false perspective of this, in some ways sharing the same structure yet within a different zoning that expands otherwise and is controlled otherwise, involving knowing which clouds are real and which are pseudo-real, a split of logics the difference as the signs ground into different frameworks yet remain correlated and can establish and sustain entangled dynamics within protected boundaries. or so it is imagined possible, given the nature of labyrinths and perspective. --- what the hell --- if i knew anything about electronics i would get a cracked artificial quartz crystal ball, internally fit it with piezo sensor, temperature sensor, photodiode on the outside, put tinfoil around it, get a feverish rotating DJ laser and point it on the inside and output readings from the various sensors into various combined number producing sequences. if really clever i would ask a nanotechnologist to prototype the lottery ball randomizer at nanoscale or have micromachines tooled to do something equivalent that could be put on a circuitboard. and yet, i wonder, why not just use the internet as the randomizer and multi set search and randomize the output. or take a photograph in multiple parallel set evaluation and randomize that. that is, the reading or data interaction is arbitrary yet bounded, though the calculation itself could be random, nonlinear and thus add more variability. and maybe this is already the default, though the photograph would have structure, yet if the computation based on input is also random, how could it be so readily traced back to crack encryption. maybe it is the more times it is referenced and an issue of boundaries, or that computers are not able to compute 'infinity' numbers to allow this to occur without constraints, such that speed is all important thus binary or single streams of random digits not pieced together set after concatenated set ad infinitum. so maybe it is the serial approach that requires it. if not this, why not have non-binary character sets as the output and use that, something potentially arbitrary or unmappable even, as a system. why must it be a number. why not a glyph or fragment or symbol instead. --- cryptic symbolism --- the HIOX symbol is a square Union Jack, easy to identify. as far as i got with research was the Egyptian Sacred Cut for its origins as well as Plato, Meno i think it was, where the geometry of the square is first cut diagonally, this making a quadrant of the HIOX symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno also important in this is dimensionality, nested platonic solids, whereby a single unit (say toothpick) can be used to generate five different perfect forms (the elements: fire, air, earth, water, aether or electromagnetism) and they each nest within the other forms. this is an entire philosophy that involves geometry and relations between hierarchical structures. a small amount of polymer clay and toothpicks should allow the forms to be built and nested via experimentation. though an inversion of the HIOX form exists, or an opposite structure which is the same graphic yet half of it is mirrored, so that the diagonals that radiate outward instead touch the midpoint of each edge. it is as if a female version of the form. there is also a combined symbol with both the male and female dynamics within them, and from this my contention has always been that data could be written into this structure fractally, as if sentences could be wrapped around its at decreasing scale as if encrypting to planck scale. in that it would lose its legibility yet like a QR code could be read by machines as if a kind of microdot or data signature file. in other word, what would the result be if you took the letter A within such a master symbol, then decided where you would next write the letter B within its matrix, at another level of scale, and onward through the alphabet. What if you took a sentence or a book. How much data might be tied to structures that could be written in the empty space, as if a coastline, if in a decipherable order.' what if data was written into HIOX and decoded by its inverted symbol. or shifted inbetween the two, etc. questions, possibilities. cryptic code. Paris - Eiffel Tower http://www.pinterest.com/pin/178525572702304954/ attachments: 1.5, 2.0 ☸

1 0