[cryptography] Which encryption chips are compromised?

[John Young]

Please stop this suicidal, treacherous discussion. You're undermining
the global industry of weak crypto and comsec. That counts as economic
terrorism in all the countries who abide arms control, export control,
copyright, capitalism, heirarchical rule, suppression of dissent, lawful
spying, breaking and entering black jobs, ubiquitous spying on each other
and everybody else, in particular what NRO terms "unobservable
and unknown phenomena," and a lot of other secret stuff which can
only be revealed by low-ranked knobheads sure to be burned at the
stake by their cowardly protectors for the irresistable allure of IPO
millions based on government contracts to keep this shit among
us. Got that? This is a place to share fudging how it should work,
and does now and then. You think  this is bullshit, dontcha? Well, it
aint. Why look at the rising use of Tor, PFS, TLS, those rat-infested
private keyservers and millions of eaters of Symantec back-doored
dookie-pie. You seen any US producers of comsec go under yet?
No, and you wont, for they are locked into surefire global success
when failure is built into their products. Screwing customers and
citizens with faulty comsec, what's wrong with that, where you been,
that's patriotic, and damn profitable. Sure, call for outraged dissent,
fine, great, if that moves the ponzi, balloons those bitcoins.

At 09:08 AM 12/12/2013, coderman wrote:
>i see your skepticism, and i raise you a retort! ;)
>
>also, this year by end of year, in 2013 you expect to:
>- Make gains in enabling decryption and Computer Network Exploitation
>(CNE) access to fourth generation/Long Term Evolution (4GL/LTE)
>networks by inserting vulnerabilities.
>- Complete enabling for [well recognized name] encryption chips used
>in Virtual Private Network and Web encryption devices.
>and last but not least,
>- Shape the worldwide commercial cryptography marketplace to make it
>more tractable to advanced cryptanalytic capabilities being developed
>by NSA/CSS.
>
>Ok, given those requirements. Who fits the bill?