The countries that trusted bugged Swiss encryption devices
On 11/29/20, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/crypto-spying-scandal_the-countries-that-truste...
And Intel, Google Android, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, etc... bugged everything else, live feeds of your life beamed and traded straight to each other, the NSA PRISM, GovCorp, VISA, PayPal, Uber, CloudFlare, CIA, GSM telco, etc. PGP RSA and good symmetrics existed for all those years. No one should have been using commercial ware, unless they thought NSA GCHQ could crack RSA etc. For which XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's. Snowden didn't have access to the crypto RSA compartment, and everyone who had or does to date are all apparently too cowardly to talk. That's a shame. Man up and speak freely. https://mobile.twitter.com/moscow_ghost/status/649247780112855040 https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7426-intelexit https://mobile.twitter.com/Secret_Beast/status/648648811145883648 https://www.intelexit.org/
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 01:49:23 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's.
interestingly wikimierda has this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad "First described by Frank Miller in 1882,[4][5] the one-time pad was re-invented in 1917. On July 22, 1919, U.S. Patent 1,310,719 was issued to Gilbert Vernam for the XOR operation used for the encryption of a one-time pad" So...the technique is older than 1940s...
On 12/2/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 01:49:23 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's.
interestingly wikimierda has this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
"First described by Frank Miller in 1882,[4][5] the one-time pad was re-invented in 1917. On July 22, 1919, U.S. Patent 1,310,719 was issued to Gilbert Vernam for the XOR operation used for the encryption of a one-time pad"
So...the technique is older than 1940s...
The technique, yes, a general proof of perfect secrecy, no. Up until the proof, at the earliest ca. (Shannon 1949 public, 1945 classified) and (Kotelnikov 1941 classified), all they had was a hunch that something magical was happening... a theory, but did not really know if it was snakeoil or not until then. To the luck of earlier users, it turned out solid, though improper usage still fell to things like VENONA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Theory_of_Secrecy_Systems https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/greatworks/shannon1949.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication 1948 A Mathematical Theory of Cryptography, Memorandum MM 45-110-02, Sept. 1, 1945, Bell Laboratories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kotelnikov http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=6050 http://www.ufn.ru/ru/articles/2006/7/k/ Sergei N Molotkov (Institute of Solid-State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow region, Russian Federation) (22 February 2006). "Quantum cryptography and V A Kotel'nikov's one-time key and sampling theorems". Physics-Uspekhi. Institute of Solid-State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow region, Russian Federation. 49 (7): 750–761. Bibcode:2006PhyU...49..750M. doi:10.1070/PU2006v049n07ABEH006050. Retrieved 2009-05-03. PACS numbers: 01.10.Fv, 03.67.Dd, 89.70.+c and openly in Russian Квантовая криптография и теоремы В.А. Котельникова об одноразовых ключах и об отсчетах. УФН https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project 1990's rapidly disappearing... https://web.archive.org/web/20061010112012/http://www.prism.net/user/dcowley...
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 03:29:33 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/2/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 01:49:23 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's.
interestingly wikimierda has this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
"First described by Frank Miller in 1882,[4][5] the one-time pad was re-invented in 1917. On July 22, 1919, U.S. Patent 1,310,719 was issued to Gilbert Vernam for the XOR operation used for the encryption of a one-time pad"
So...the technique is older than 1940s...
The technique, yes, a general proof of perfect secrecy, no.
that 'proof' is useless academic bullshit. on the other hand, I'd bet whoever invented the OTP (and it obv can be earlier than miller) knew that one 'key' could be used to 'decrypt' any text - which is what the 'proof' of 'perfect secrecy' amounts to. The key fact here is that the OTP was well known and it's 'odd' to suppose it was not used since the time it was invented.
Up until the proof, at the earliest ca. (Shannon 1949 public, 1945 classified) and (Kotelnikov 1941 classified), all they had was a hunch that something magical was happening
hilarious sucking of govcorp's cock.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 1:44 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 03:29:33 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/2/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 01:49:23 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's.
interestingly wikimierda has this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
"First described by Frank Miller in 1882,[4][5] the one-time pad was re-invented in 1917. On July 22, 1919, U.S. Patent 1,310,719 was issued to Gilbert Vernam for the XOR operation used for the encryption of a one-time pad"
So...the technique is older than 1940s...
The technique, yes, a general proof of perfect secrecy, no.
that 'proof' is useless academic bullshit.
on the other hand, I'd bet whoever invented the OTP (and it obv can be earlier than miller) knew that one 'key' could be used to 'decrypt' any text - which is what the 'proof' of 'perfect secrecy' amounts to.
The key fact here is that the OTP was well known and it's 'odd' to suppose it was not used since the time it was invented.
Up until the proof, at the earliest ca. (Shannon 1949 public, 1945
classified)
and (Kotelnikov 1941 classified), all they had was a hunch that something magical was happening
hilarious sucking of govcorp's cock
It's been used since it was invented. You just need a unique encyclopedia for every communication you have, and to destroy the communication fully after decrypting it. "hilarious sucking of govcorp's cock. jewmail. agent."
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:53:35 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been used since it was invented. You just need a unique encyclopedia for every communication you have,
Not sure what you mean by that. You need a key which is as long as the message. That's hardly as long as an encyclopedia. People seem to be missing the moral of the story, which is this : if you need 'military grade encryption' you use OTPs, and that is something that government criminals must have known before WWII.
and to destroy the communication fully after decrypting it.
"hilarious sucking of govcorp's cock. jewmail. agent."
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 7:32 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 01:49:23 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
XOR OTP was known impenetrable since the 40's.
interestingly wikimierda has this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
"First described by Frank Miller in 1882,[4][5] the one-time pad was re-invented in 1917. On July 22, 1919, U.S. Patent 1,310,719 was issued to Gilbert Vernam for the XOR operation used for the encryption of a one-time pad"
So...the technique is older than 1940s...
Yeah the OTP is the most well-known highly strong cryptographic thingy, like quartz in geochemostry. I heard people recently talking about using _multiple_ OTP's. Not sure how that helps anything but it sounds nice and paranoid. I don't know the cryptography, but I can observe that the xor operation has half as many output states as input states, and that each one is evenly dependent on both input states, so if half your input state is both fully secret and fully random for every bit, the output state is fully random for every bit too and contains no information on the public input state (but I have delusions, so check with a crypto mailing list or something).
I heard people recently talking about using _multiple_ OTP's. Not sure how that helps anything but it sounds nice and paranoid.
That's probably describing "multiple encryption", cascade, or composition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_encryption In the case of properly used OTP's with TRNG's, multiple doesn't help anything since the info theoretic security of that system has been proven. But for all other classes of algos such as the common asym/symm/hash, multiple can be used as a safety backup in case a sole use algo might be broken, but is no good if they all are fail... ie: md5 + sha1 != good or if use of all N of them was poor, thus = fail too. PS: Now for the more interesting thing in this note... Notice how GoldBug et al happened to sneak themselves onto that page too. Someone really needs to start a formal project to publicly investigate and debunk or clear their software claims and fishy methods once and for all, for any user's sake since they can get hurt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fuchshuber https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=goldbug+messenger Is GoldBug yet another example like the bugged "Swiss encryption devices", an exploit that should not be trusted? Journalists, activists, human rights work, etc would probably want to know.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 6:07 AM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
I heard people recently talking about using _multiple_ OTP's. Not sure how that helps anything but it sounds nice and paranoid.
That's probably describing "multiple encryption", cascade, or composition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_encryption
In the case of properly used OTP's with TRNG's, multiple doesn't help anything since the info theoretic security of that system has been proven.
But for all other classes of algos such as the common asym/symm/hash, multiple can be used as a safety backup in case a sole use algo might be broken, but is no good if they all are fail... ie: md5 + sha1 != good or if use of all N of them was poor, thus = fail too.
I'm aware that xoring hashes reduces their security (more collisions, I believe). You want to concatenate them. PS: Now for the more interesting thing in this note...
Notice how GoldBug et al happened to sneak themselves onto that page too.
Similar to me saying "public input state" above. A dangerous error but doesn't appear malicious on anyone's part. publicly investigate and debunk or clear their I guess to take action on weird, sketchy public behaviors, one would need to figure out how to influence or satisfy whatever is stimulating them. Not sure how to do that.
On 13/08/2021 11:06, grarpamp wrote:
I heard people recently talking about using _multiple_ OTP's. Not sure how that helps anything but it sounds nice and paranoid.
If the rng is good then using multiple OTPs doesn't gain you anything. If...
That's probably describing "multiple encryption", cascade, or composition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_encryption
In the case of properly used OTP's with TRNG's, multiple doesn't help anything since the info theoretic security of that system has been proven.
Info theoretic security isn't everything - you might want to use an OTP then re-encrypt the ciphertext with a block cipher in order to get non-malleability *and* info theoretic security. You might also want to use padding for message length concealment. You might want some form of message authentication.. .. and so on. Peter Fairbrother
Interesting that these series of articles do not mention encryption appliance competitors Racal and Cylink (where I was a director until 1994 and where I am sure we modified the RNG to compromise our devices to NSA requirements). On Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 4:38 AM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/crypto-spying-scandal_the-countries-that-truste...
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Karl -
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Steven Schear