The earliest and most enduring form of infosec -- crypt-crypto -- is non-EM, non-language, non-homo-erectus. Current versions contain vestigals of those primitives in what is disingenuously termed implementation. And it is in implementation where most comsec failures occur and where most successes succeed. Code is closer to whistling in the dark, baying at the moon, offering newborns to hungry wolves. Implementation is 99.99+% of infosec-comsec, perhaps 100%. Code hardly scratches the surface and might be constructively seen as a ruse, a strategem, concocted and promoted to delude. Delusion is the prime purpose of implementation. Code inebriation creates phantasms of security by ignoring signs of predators aprowl where coders live, work, sleep, chat OTR and post. David Kahn, among others, amply desribes the range of implementation, its short-term successes and long-term delusions. Nothing finer in Carolina than belief in an invulnerable cryptosystem. Less noticed is the effectiveness of promulgating an invulnerable comsec or cryptosystem to encourage widespread use. As seen today, not only in the fantastic rise of the comsec industry but also in the frantic efforts to keep the ball rolling to counter Snowden's disclosures of delusion. At 11:58 AM 12/8/2013, Brian Carroll wrote: i need to make note of this observation because it has special
relevance for the present situation of shared observation regarding 'information operations' (or other) that occur and-or are analyzed within a particular context, framework, conceptualization. because there is a split in worldview and modeling between the animal realm whereby the sonar of bats or directional navigation of birds become detached in their EM abilities from similar non-recognized natural abilities in humans, which are 'off the map' so to speak, in terms of a general awareness and recognition of similar EM physiology.
Rest good stuff elided.
John Young wrote:
The earliest and most enduring form of infosec -- crypt-crypto -- is non-EM, non-language, non-homo-erectus. Current versions contain vestigals of those primitives in what is disingenuously termed implementation. And it is in implementation where most comsec failures occur and where most successes succeed. Code is closer to whistling in the dark, baying at the moon, offering newborns to hungry wolves.
i am completely intrigued and at once baffled by this, wondering of Code here is referencing code in a wider generic sense or is restricted to computer coding as the parameters. the examples given {whistling, baying} seem both in a realm of music/voicing and movement {gesture} and these all could be contained within a context of language, seemingly. or perhaps not, as envisaged. what has me further curious is if this somehow has linguistics (as crypt.crypto) advantaged to mathematics, as communication framework in some wider more open or elusive sense, or as the conception/conceptualization of what code is or may be if crypto
Implementation is 99.99+% of infosec-comsec, perhaps 100%. Code hardly scratches the surface and might be constructively seen as a ruse, a strategem, concocted and promoted to delude.
i am still trying to ground with electromagnetic framework thus imagining beyond this, as if already grounded, more unknowing of how to even consider such thoughts or considerations as it difficult or impossible to separate from the medium involved in my naive and limited awareness and even less understanding closest to this perhaps in this not-knowing what might be is that the cosmos itself is encrypted, as a starting point to questioning, context for developing technical crypt.boxes then perhaps DNA as encrypted code of life in this framework, taxonomy of species and disciplines decrypting the patterning, securing truth key to unlocking the works seemingly, OZ writer L. Frank Baum naming electromagnetism as the master key, wondering if it is actually a blank, then what that implies, or if parameters exist by which it can be made to unlock access to new dimensions in which this otherness is more tangible, maybe a realm exists outside of charge, here not the case at least in the level experienced or encountered, precorpse in the necropolis, is everything then only "information", etc. [whitespace]
(now i realize i likely misread, strange-read/reply-functioned your post, not quite or completely grokking the distinction between crypt.crypto and implementation, separation or distancing of these though still the relation to nature itself as example appears retained, as if providing proof-of-concept and demonstration models for how to go about it,w watching various creatures, ecosystems, crystals, particle dynamics) John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The earliest and most enduring form of infosec -- crypt-crypto -- is non-EM, non-language, non-homo-erectus. Current versions contain vestigals of those primitives in what is disingenuously termed implementation. And it is in implementation where most comsec failures occur and where most successes succeed. Code is closer to whistling in the dark, baying at the moon, offering newborns to hungry wolves.
Implementation is 99.99+% of infosec-comsec, perhaps 100%. Code hardly scratches the surface and might be constructively seen as a ruse, a strategem, concocted and promoted to delude.
Delusion is the prime purpose of implementation. Code inebriation creates phantasms of security by ignoring signs of predators aprowl where coders live, work, sleep, chat OTR and post.
David Kahn, among others, amply desribes the range of implementation, its short-term successes and long-term delusions. Nothing finer in Carolina than belief in an invulnerable cryptosystem. Less noticed is the effectiveness of promulgating an invulnerable comsec or cryptosystem to encourage widespread use. As seen today, not only in the fantastic rise of the comsec industry but also in the frantic efforts to keep the ball rolling to counter Snowden's disclosures of delusion.
participants (2)
-
brian carroll -
John Young