automatic tranny wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:54:32 -0600, Skeeter said:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> In article <v8dob6$1lrot$3@dont-email.me>, loralandclinton@invalid.co
>> says...
>>>
>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>>> The point being that we see an average of two
>>>> mass shootings per day in the US. The only thing special about this
>>>> one was that the Donald was present and happened to get his ear
>>>> nicked.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-have-hid-antisemitic-anti-immigrant-social-page
>>>
>>> The FBI is investigating a social media account that may have belonged
>>> to Crooks with over 700 antisemitic and anti-immigrant posts.
>>>
>>> ?There were over 700 comments posted from this account,? said Abbate.
>>> ?Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter,
>>> appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse
>>> political violence and are described as extreme in nature.?
>>>
>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/18/trump-shooter-researched-royal-family-while-planning-attack/
>>>
>>> Trump shooter researched Royal family while planning attack
>>> Thomas Crooks searched online for various high-profile figures as he
>>> ?scoped out? targets for assassination, FBI says
>>
>> 3 encrypted cash accounts over seas also that somehow our brilliant FBI
>> can't crack.
>
> ask a biden
>
hey joe who did you blow ,
moe pushed the button boy and you went to the show ,
better suck a little harder or the sheckles won't flow

automatic tranny wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:38:46 -0700, % said:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <g71oajlnsdmnumq1c1ohqlgt5ajtdtvr24@4ax.com>, x@y.com says...
>>>>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>
>>>>> In article <v8dob6$1lrot$3@dont-email.me>, loralandclinton@invalid.co
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>>>>>> The point being that we see an average of two
>>>>>>> mass shootings per day in the US. The only thing special about this
>>>>>>> one was that the Donald was present and happened to get his ear
>>>>>>> nicked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-have-hid-antisemitic-anti-immigrant-social-page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FBI is investigating a social media account that may have belonged
>>>>>> to Crooks with over 700 antisemitic and anti-immigrant posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?There were over 700 comments posted from this account,? said Abbate.
>>>>>> ?Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter,
>>>>>> appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse
>>>>>> political violence and are described as extreme in nature.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/18/trump-shooter-researched-royal-family-while-planning-attack/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump shooter researched Royal family while planning attack
>>>>>> Thomas Crooks searched online for various high-profile figures as he
>>>>>> ?scoped out? targets for assassination, FBI says
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 encrypted cash accounts over seas also that somehow our brilliant FBI
>>>>> can't crack.
>>>>
>>>> If all I need to do is to encrypt something such that you can't get
>>>> it, that's easy. I seed a random generator and XOR it. It's not
>>>> crackable. The seed is the key. The problem happens when I need to
>>>> send you the key.
>>>
>>> I believe they can crack it. I also wonder where they came from.
>>>
>> i already figured it out
>
> by cracky
>
i slipped in

X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>> never deal with the devil you don't know ,
>> when you can deal with the devil you got
>
> In the US political system, it's: "Between the devil you know and the
> one you don't, choose the devil you haven't been with lately."
>
> The Biden/Harris administration has been reasonably successful;

No it hasn't.

> whereas, the previous Trump administration was characterized as: "a
> dumpster fire in a train wreck." "Reasonably successful" doesn't mean
> stellar, but he hasn't sent a mob to the capitol, either... yet.
> Actually, things are going reasonably well... everything under Biden's
> control is, anyway. There are many things that people *think* are
> controlled by the president that are, in fact, legislatively centered:
> the budget & inflation, border security, the crime rate... I could go
> on and on.
>
> The president can't issue a directive that secures the border;

Yes he can.

If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!

>I believe they can crack it. I also wonder where they came from.

It's known as a single use pad. It is uncrackable. (Just not real
useful in the world of cryptography.)

On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 17:04:06 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:

> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>In article <v8dob6$1lrot$3@dont-email.me>, loralandclinton@invalid.co
>>says...
>>>
>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>> > The point being that we see an average of two
>>> > mass shootings per day in the US. The only thing special about this
>>> > one was that the Donald was present and happened to get his ear
>>> > nicked.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-have-hid-
antisemitic-anti-immigrant-social-page
>>>
>>> The FBI is investigating a social media account that may have belonged
>>> to Crooks with over 700 antisemitic and anti-immigrant posts.
>>>
>>> ?There were over 700 comments posted from this account,? said Abbate.
>>> ?Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter,
>>> appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse
>>> political violence and are described as extreme in nature.?
>>>
>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/18/trump-shooter-
researched-royal-family-while-planning-attack/
>>>
>>> Trump shooter researched Royal family while planning attack Thomas
>>> Crooks searched online for various high-profile figures as he ?scoped
>>> out? targets for assassination, FBI says
>>
>>3 encrypted cash accounts over seas also that somehow our brilliant FBI
>>can't crack.
>
> If all I need to do is to encrypt something such that you can't get it,
> that's easy. I seed a random generator and XOR it. It's not crackable.
> The seed is the key. The problem happens when I need to send you the
> key.

Surprisingly savvy.

(As long as both ends are using the same PRNG.)

--
-c

On 3 Aug 2024 10:36:05 GMT, Creon wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 17:04:06 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"
> wrote:
>
>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>
>>>In article <v8dob6$1lrot$3@dont-email.me>, loralandclinton@invalid.co
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>>> > The point being that we see an average of two
>>>> > mass shootings per day in the US. The only thing special about
>>>> > this one was that the Donald was present and happened to get his
>>>> > ear nicked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-have-hid-
> antisemitic-anti-immigrant-social-page
>>>>
>>>> The FBI is investigating a social media account that may have
>>>> belonged to Crooks with over 700 antisemitic and anti-immigrant
>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>> ?There were over 700 comments posted from this account,? said Abbate.
>>>> ?Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter,
>>>> appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse
>>>> political violence and are described as extreme in nature.?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/18/trump-shooter-
> researched-royal-family-while-planning-attack/
>>>>
>>>> Trump shooter researched Royal family while planning attack Thomas
>>>> Crooks searched online for various high-profile figures as he ?scoped
>>>> out? targets for assassination, FBI says
>>>
>>>3 encrypted cash accounts over seas also that somehow our brilliant FBI
>>>can't crack.
>>
>> If all I need to do is to encrypt something such that you can't get it,
>> that's easy. I seed a random generator and XOR it. It's not
>> crackable.
>> The seed is the key. The problem happens when I need to send you the
>> key.
>
> Surprisingly savvy.
>
> (As long as both ends are using the same PRNG.)

I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about
it in sci.crypt, we'll see what they say.

--
-c

If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!

>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about
>it in sci.crypt, we'll see what they say.

I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in
talk.politics.guns.

Creon wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2024 10:36:05 GMT, Creon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 17:04:06 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>
>>>> In article <v8dob6$1lrot$3@dont-email.me>, loralandclinton@invalid.co
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>>>>> The point being that we see an average of two
>>>>>> mass shootings per day in the US. The only thing special about
>>>>>> this one was that the Donald was present and happened to get his
>>>>>> ear nicked.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-have-hid-
>> antisemitic-anti-immigrant-social-page
>>>>>
>>>>> The FBI is investigating a social media account that may have
>>>>> belonged to Crooks with over 700 antisemitic and anti-immigrant
>>>>> posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?There were over 700 comments posted from this account,? said Abbate.
>>>>> ?Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter,
>>>>> appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse
>>>>> political violence and are described as extreme in nature.?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/18/trump-shooter-
>> researched-royal-family-while-planning-attack/
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump shooter researched Royal family while planning attack Thomas
>>>>> Crooks searched online for various high-profile figures as he ?scoped
>>>>> out? targets for assassination, FBI says
>>>>
>>>> 3 encrypted cash accounts over seas also that somehow our brilliant FBI
>>>> can't crack.
>>>
>>> If all I need to do is to encrypt something such that you can't get it,
>>> that's easy. I seed a random generator and XOR it. It's not
>>> crackable.
>>> The seed is the key. The problem happens when I need to send you the
>>> key.
>>
>> Surprisingly savvy.
>>
>> (As long as both ends are using the same PRNG.)
>
> I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about
> it in sci.crypt, we'll see what they say.
>
oh look a new group to wreck ,
giving you full credit of course

On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:

> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>we'll see what they say.
>
> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.

Take a look and see.

My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.

--
-c

In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>
>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>
>>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>we'll see what they say.
>>
>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>
> Take a look and see.
>
> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
.....

Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
you at least get some partial matches.
If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
the message was about and who is talking/listening.
Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
(usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
easier to crack.

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>
>>>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>we'll see what they say.
>>>
>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>
>> Take a look and see.
>>
>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
> ....
>
> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
> you at least get some partial matches.
> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
> easier to crack.

OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters long,
with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead encode
"The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both cases,
the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is the
same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the set of
possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon" and
"Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N.

You can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come, even
after a brute force search of the key space.

That's why OTP is considered unbreakable.

--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Checkmate admits that, for all intents and purposes, he carries a teddy
bear in public: <d6cnes.ket.17.19@news.alt.net>

Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>
>>>>> I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>> we'll see what they say.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>
>>> Take a look and see.
>>>
>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>> ....
>>
>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>> you at least get some partial matches.
>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>> easier to crack.
>
> OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
> key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
> and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
> say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters long,
> with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead encode
> "The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both cases,
> the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is the
> same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the set of
> possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon" and
> "Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
> operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N.
>
> You can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
> repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come, even
> after a brute force search of the key space.
>
> That's why OTP is considered unbreakable.
>
hi boner

In alt.global-warming Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>
>>>>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>>we'll see what they say.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>
>>> Take a look and see.
>>>
>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>> ....
>>
>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>> you at least get some partial matches.
>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>> easier to crack.
>
> OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
....

So are nomenclators. They dont use them any more because they are too easy.

With AI's there are "people" that can 1 trillion times a second
decide whether something is possibly English or some other natural language.
With quantum computers the speed is essentially infinite.
So you're imagined reason for "impossibility" is all too flawed.
Just because someone wrote something that sounded reasonable
in the 1950s is no reason to accept it as true without a rigorous
mathematical proof. :)

--
<kaggle.com/kymhorsell1>

On 2024-08-08 7:10 p.m., R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In alt.global-warming Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>>> we'll see what they say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look and see.
>>>>
>>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>>> you at least get some partial matches.
>>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>>> easier to crack.
>>
>> OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
> ...
>
> So are nomenclators. They dont use them any more because they are too easy.
>
> With AI's there are "people" that can 1 trillion times a second
> decide whether something is possibly English or some other natural language.
> With quantum computers the speed is essentially infinite.
> So you're imagined reason for "impossibility" is all too flawed.
> Just because someone wrote something that sounded reasonable
> in the 1950s is no reason to accept it as true without a rigorous
> mathematical proof. :)

Nadegda, you might want to let this one go. We have an old saying here:
you can lead a Horsell to water, but you can't make her drink.

*snicker*

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>
>>>>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>>we'll see what they say.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>
>>> Take a look and see.
>>>
>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>> ....
>>
>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>> you at least get some partial matches.
>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>> easier to crack.
>
>OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
>key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
>and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
>say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters long,
>with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead encode
>"The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both cases,
>the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is the
>same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the set of
>possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon" and
>"Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
>operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N.
>
>You can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
>repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come, even
>after a brute force search of the key space.
>
>That's why OTP is considered unbreakable.

Oh, come on. That's the first lesson of the first class on crypto.
"I have a secret. I bet you can't guess what it is!"

When I was a young person in the '60s, my housemates and I puffed a
little pot... OK, maybe more than a *little*. We devised great
schemes as to how we'd hide our stash; I won't go into all of them,
but hiding a bag of pot is easy. The issue was that we had pot and
residue thereof tracked all over that house. A detector dog wouldn't
have known where to alert first.

There you have the issue with a one-time pad. I can encrypt it, but
*now* what? As soon as I try to send it, I must expose the key.
(Solution: Ite-ray eee-thay eee-kay n ig-pay atin-lay.)

In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>>>we'll see what they say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look and see.
>>>>
>>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>>> you at least get some partial matches.
>>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>>> easier to crack.
>>
>>OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
>>key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
>>and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
>>say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters long,
>>with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead encode
>>"The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both cases,
>>the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is the
>>same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the set of
>>possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon" and
>>"Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
>>operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N.
>>
>>You can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
>>repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come, even
>>after a brute force search of the key space.
>>
>>That's why OTP is considered unbreakable.
>
> Oh, come on. That's the first lesson of the first class on crypto.
> "I have a secret. I bet you can't guess what it is!"
>
> When I was a young person in the '60s, my housemates and I puffed a
> little pot... OK, maybe more than a *little*. We devised great
> schemes as to how we'd hide our stash; I won't go into all of them,
> but hiding a bag of pot is easy. The issue was that we had pot and
> residue thereof tracked all over that house. A detector dog wouldn't
> have known where to alert first.
>
> There you have the issue with a one-time pad. I can encrypt it, but
> *now* what? As soon as I try to send it, I must expose the key.
> (Solution: Ite-ray eee-thay eee-kay n ig-pay atin-lay.)
>

Some time back -- maybe 30y or so -- I used to look in on sci.crypt every
now and then.
People trying to cement themselves in the clown basket back then
used to send encrypted messages and challenge all comers to break them.
Pretty much is is a "one time pad" since there is only the one message.
There used to be a couple strong guys down at the BRL that run
some of these things through their machinery. At least one time some
poster geolocating to the USSR got a surprise that it was "easy" to
read their new supposed super code. Even if the guys at BRL could not
get an English translation they sometimes could figure out how many
words were in it, how long the words were, and sometimes a topic
(e.g. guessing from words inside the "challenege" post).
At one time I posted an AI solution to one of the challenges.
Even given very little codetext an AI can sometimes twiddle the dials
and start to get some parts of the clear.
The technique was enough to give some people on the group a jolt.
I often "harp" on the impossibility of keeping a secret. There are
good mathematical reasons for presuming this is so. With various
"breakthroughs" (possibly known for decades :) it seems likely
the old idea of keeping the code messages and later when the key
has been stolen somehow then going back and reading the messages
might have a new twist. Some techniques have been demonstrated
that should allow information to be sent back in time.
And they say RSA is now broken. :)

R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
>>>>>>> we'll see what they say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
>>>>>> mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in talk.politics.guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look and see.
>>>>>
>>>>> My geek reading time is currently taken up reading _UNIX: A History
>>>>> and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being lazy.
>>>> A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form until
>>>> you at least get some partial matches.
>>>> If you have a quantum computer you can of course test all possible
>>>> n-bit numbers for all the parameters of the RNG at the same time.
>>>> Strong cryptographic RNG rely on other forms of randomness that may be
>>>> harder to crack. E.g. noise in a cpu or computer memory or
>>>> thermal noise in a bank of resistors or simular.
>>>> But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng" based on
>>>> pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all that random
>>>> and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long strings of
>>>> correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find just parts of the
>>>> message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than "real" randomness and just
>>>> a few bits every now and then may give some useful knowlege of what
>>>> the message was about and who is talking/listening.
>>>> Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy clerk". E.g. nomencaltor
>>>> codes were once real polar -- relating words and common numbers with
>>>> (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
>>>> Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
>>>> encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
>>>> and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder
>>>> easier to crack.
>>>
>>> OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
>>> key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
>>> and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
>>> say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters long,
>>> with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead encode
>>> "The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both cases,
>>> the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is the
>>> same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the set of
>>> possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon" and
>>> "Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
>>> operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N.
>>>
>>> You can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
>>> repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come, even
>>> after a brute force search of the key space.
>>>
>>> That's why OTP is considered unbreakable.
>>
>> Oh, come on. That's the first lesson of the first class on crypto.
>> "I have a secret. I bet you can't guess what it is!"
>>
>> When I was a young person in the '60s, my housemates and I puffed a
>> little pot... OK, maybe more than a *little*. We devised great
>> schemes as to how we'd hide our stash; I won't go into all of them,
>> but hiding a bag of pot is easy. The issue was that we had pot and
>> residue thereof tracked all over that house. A detector dog wouldn't
>> have known where to alert first.
>>
>> There you have the issue with a one-time pad. I can encrypt it, but
>> *now* what? As soon as I try to send it, I must expose the key.
>> (Solution: Ite-ray eee-thay eee-kay n ig-pay atin-lay.)
>>
>
> Some time back -- maybe 30y or so -- I used to look in on sci.crypt every
> now and then.
> People trying to cement themselves in the clown basket back then
> used to send encrypted messages and challenge all comers to break them.
> Pretty much is is a "one time pad" since there is only the one message.
> There used to be a couple strong guys down at the BRL that run
> some of these things through their machinery. At least one time some
> poster geolocating to the USSR got a surprise that it was "easy" to
> read their new supposed super code. Even if the guys at BRL could not
> get an English translation they sometimes could figure out how many
> words were in it, how long the words were, and sometimes a topic
> (e.g. guessing from words inside the "challenege" post).
> At one time I posted an AI solution to one of the challenges.
> Even given very little codetext an AI can sometimes twiddle the dials
> and start to get some parts of the clear.
> The technique was enough to give some people on the group a jolt.
> I often "harp" on the impossibility of keeping a secret. There are
> good mathematical reasons for presuming this is so. With various
> "breakthroughs" (possibly known for decades :) it seems likely
> the old idea of keeping the code messages and later when the key
> has been stolen somehow then going back and reading the messages
> might have a new twist. Some techniques have been demonstrated
> that should allow information to be sent back in time.
> And they say RSA is now broken. :)
>
and this has what to do with global warming

In alt.global-warming notpresent <notpresdent@gmail.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
....
> and this has what to do with global warming

An exercise in the basic physics, the understanding of science
and application of scientific principles.

Probably moot point for indiv that can't correctly guess
anything about a poster given they use their real name and
posted the URL for their linkedin info.

--
Retrieving information from a black hole using quantum machine learning
High Energy Phys. Hayden and Preskill showed that information can be
retrieved from a black hole that is sufficiently scrambling, assuming that
the retriever has perfect control of the emitted Hawking radiation and
perfect knowledge of the internal dynamics of the black hole.
-- PhysRevA.106.062434

🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Jen 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender
💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 19:22:08 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "X, formerly known as
> \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> determined that the following was of great
> importance to "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> and
> subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
> <01qfbjdosuhgum6d8mt2g77igji2f494kq@4ax.com>:
>
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 12:21:53 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= In alt.global-warming Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 06:21:23 -0500, X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= I've wondered about this for a while. Just asked about it in sci.crypt,
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= we'll see what they say.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= I would expect the level of discussion regarding cryptography there to
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= mirror the deep thought into the politics of guns in
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= talk.politics.guns.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= Take a look and see. My geek reading time is currently taken up reading
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= _UNIX: A History and a Memoir_, but I am curious how one would crack it.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= .... Cracking a "one time pad" can sometimes rely on the encoding being
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= lazy. A PRNG generally comes in several different forms. Try each form
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= until you at least get some partial matches. If you have a quantum
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= computer you can of course test all possible n-bit numbers for all the
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= parameters of the RNG at the same time. Strong cryptographic RNG rely on
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= other forms of randomness that may be harder to crack. E.g. noise in a
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= cpu or computer memory or thermal noise in a bank of resistors or
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= simular. But I've noticed with my own machines that have "strong rng"
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= based on pools of garbage the O/S keeps on hand the rng are not all
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= that random and seem to have patches where they "get stuck" in long
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= strings of correlated bit. A traditional cracker might try to find
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= just parts of the message that appear to have "pseudo" rather than
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= "real" randomness and just a few bits every now and then may give some
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= useful knowlege of what the message was about and who is
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= talking/listening. Some of this is just the modern spin on "lazy
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= clerk". E.g. nomencaltor codes were once real polar -- relating words
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= and common numbers with (usually) one of a selection of random numbers.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= Code cracking relied sometimes on the fact the dumb human doing the
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= encrypting tended to memorize one or 2 choices for a given code number
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= and use it over and over making enough samples from that coder easier to
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= crack.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= OTP is impossible to crack. Even if you use a brute-force search of the
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= key space, you can't distinguish between the correct decoded plaintext
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= and every other possible plaintext of the same length. In other words,
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= say I encode "Trump is a colossal dickhead", which is 28 characters
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= long, with a random 28 character OTP using XOR. Or perhaps I instead
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= encode "The operation begins at noon". Also 28 characters long. In both
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= cases, the set of every possible ciphertext I could get from XOR OTP is
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= the same, and so no matter what ciphertext you have in your hand the
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= set of possible plaintexts includes both "The operation begins at noon"
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= and "Trump is a colossal dickhead". It also includes, for example, "The
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= operation begins at four". And five and nine and 0N00 for every N. You
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= can't even be sure whether I'm encrypting battle plans or potentially
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= repressed political speech, let alone what hour the attack will come,
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= even after a brute force search of the key space. That's why OTP is
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= considered unbreakable.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= Oh, come on. That's the first lesson of the first class on crypto. "I
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= have a secret. I bet you can't guess what it is!"
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= When I was a young person in the '60s, my housemates and I puffed a
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= little pot... OK, maybe more than a *little*. We devised great schemes
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= as to how we'd hide our stash; I won't go into all of them, but hiding
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= a bag of pot is easy. The issue was that we had pot and residue thereof
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= tracked all over that house. A detector dog wouldn't have known where
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= to alert first.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= There you have the issue with a one-time pad. I can encrypt it, but
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= *now* what? As soon as I try to send it, I must expose the key.
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?= (Solution: Ite-ray eee-thay eee-kay n ig-pay atin-lay.)

R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In alt.global-warming notpresent <notpresdent@gmail.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>> In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
> ...
>> and this has what to do with global warming
>
> An exercise in the basic physics, the understanding of science
> and application of scientific principles.
>
> Probably moot point for indiv that can't correctly guess
> anything about a poster given they use their real name and
> posted the URL for their linkedin info.
>
K Rim Horsebell,

Usenet was created with the intention of exposing all it's users to your
outerfilthing. Seize the day and post some addresses. Most of the RFCs
will tell you where that guy parks his car, and using your key on it
shouldn't take much resolve.

In alt.global-warming nitwit#79 <nitwit#79@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.global-warming notpresent <notpresdent@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>> In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>> ...
>>> and this has what to do with global warming
>> An exercise in the basic physics, the understanding of science
>> and application of scientific principles.
>> Probably moot point for indiv that can't correctly guess
>> anything about a poster given they use their real name and
>> posted the URL for their linkedin info.
> K Rim Horsebell,
> Usenet was created with the intention of exposing all it's users to your
> outerfilthing. Seize the day and post some addresses. Most of the RFCs
> will tell you where that guy parks his car, and using your key on it
> shouldn't take much resolve.

When I was in freshman physics there were a lot of guys up
the back of the class that used to throw paper darts when the material
started getting non-trivial.

I asked one of the profs about it and he told me -- with the vast
experience of 40y herding physics 101 students -- that the kids
throwing darts were usually the ones that washed out in first year.
Normally, her underlined, they tried to keep students going until
at least 3rd year because it attracted more funding.

I interpret a lot of stuff I see x-posted from t.p.g as paper darts.

Now y'all can too.

--
Psychologists have determined some people are terrified of math.
By attaching electrodes to the legs of experimental subjects, then
feeding them problems like adding up a column of numbers, they found
thinking about math caused unconscious flexing of muscles normally
used for running.
They found math triggered at least the "flight" part of the fear
response.
Why would a psychologist do that? I hear someone in the audience ask.
Answer: Because it's fun!
Addendum: It's speculated some people exhibit the same kind of
response in any learning situation. C.f. Dunning and Kruger's work on
(in)competence.

On 10 Aug 2024, R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> posted some
news:v99dsh$2dna$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com:

> In alt.global-warming nitwit#79 <nitwit#79@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>> In alt.global-warming notpresent <notpresdent@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>> In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial
>>>>>> 911!
>>> ...
>>>> and this has what to do with global warming
>>> An exercise in the basic physics, the understanding of science
>>> and application of scientific principles.
>>> Probably moot point for indiv that can't correctly guess
>>> anything about a poster given they use their real name and
>>> posted the URL for their linkedin info.
>> K Rim Horsebell,
>> Usenet was created with the intention of exposing all it's users to
>> your outerfilthing. Seize the day and post some addresses. Most of
>> the RFCs will tell you where that guy parks his car, and using your
>> key on it shouldn't take much resolve.
>
> When I was in freshman physics there were a lot of guys up
> the back of the class that used to throw paper darts when the material
> started getting non-trivial.
>
> I asked one of the profs about it and he told me -- with the vast
> experience of 40y herding physics 101 students -- that the kids
> throwing darts were usually the ones that washed out in first year.
> Normally, her underlined, they tried to keep students going until
> at least 3rd year because it attracted more funding.
>
> I interpret a lot of stuff I see x-posted from t.p.g as paper darts.
>
> Now y'all can too.

You know how you can find out who won't make it past the first year?

Introduce them to Ethiopian mathmatics. Those who get it fail. Those who
don't become professors.

If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!

>Some time back -- maybe 30y or so -- I used to look in on sci.crypt every
>now and then.
>People trying to cement themselves in the clown basket back then
>used to send encrypted messages and challenge all comers to break them.
>Pretty much is is a "one time pad" since there is only the one message.
>There used to be a couple strong guys down at the BRL that run
>some of these things through their machinery. At least one time some
>poster geolocating to the USSR got a surprise that it was "easy" to
>read their new supposed super code. Even if the guys at BRL could not
>get an English translation they sometimes could figure out how many
>words were in it, how long the words were, and sometimes a topic
>(e.g. guessing from words inside the "challenege" post).
>At one time I posted an AI solution to one of the challenges.
>Even given very little codetext an AI can sometimes twiddle the dials
>and start to get some parts of the clear.
>The technique was enough to give some people on the group a jolt.
>I often "harp" on the impossibility of keeping a secret. There are
>good mathematical reasons for presuming this is so. With various
>"breakthroughs" (possibly known for decades :) it seems likely
>the old idea of keeping the code messages and later when the key
>has been stolen somehow then going back and reading the messages
>might have a new twist. Some techniques have been demonstrated
>that should allow information to be sent back in time.
>And they say RSA is now broken. :)

Oh, there haven't been any *new* seminal developments in crypto in
years. RSA stands as long as the assumption that factoring a number
is a problem of exponential order stands. If you crack my 128-bit
encryption, I can double your cost by adding one bit to the algorithm.
(It is unproven that factoring has exponential order. We live in fear
that one day, some grad student will present a paper and... OH,
*SHIT*!)

How long does the encrypted message have to remain secret? (Are U.S.
Grant's plans to take Vicksburg still a secret?) I got a kick out of
the scene in *Windtalkers* (won an Oscar for stupidest movie, I hear)
where the good guys are telling the naval gunners to elevate by 250...
or something... but the bad guys couldn't figure out what they were
saying. (I bet they knew pretty soon.)

Point here being that, if it takes you two weeks to crack the code,
it's probably good enough.

If RSA is ever *broken* broken, we're in deep doodoo. Just because
somebody managed to run MD-5 backwards doesn't make it *broken*.

In alt.global-warming "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>Some time back -- maybe 30y or so -- I used to look in on sci.crypt every
>>now and then.
>>People trying to cement themselves in the clown basket back then
>>used to send encrypted messages and challenge all comers to break them.
>>Pretty much is is a "one time pad" since there is only the one message.
>>There used to be a couple strong guys down at the BRL that run
>>some of these things through their machinery. At least one time some
>>poster geolocating to the USSR got a surprise that it was "easy" to
>>read their new supposed super code. Even if the guys at BRL could not
>>get an English translation they sometimes could figure out how many
>>words were in it, how long the words were, and sometimes a topic
>>(e.g. guessing from words inside the "challenege" post).
>>At one time I posted an AI solution to one of the challenges.
>>Even given very little codetext an AI can sometimes twiddle the dials
>>and start to get some parts of the clear.
>>The technique was enough to give some people on the group a jolt.
>>I often "harp" on the impossibility of keeping a secret. There are
>>good mathematical reasons for presuming this is so. With various
>>"breakthroughs" (possibly known for decades :) it seems likely
>>the old idea of keeping the code messages and later when the key
>>has been stolen somehow then going back and reading the messages
>>might have a new twist. Some techniques have been demonstrated
>>that should allow information to be sent back in time.
>>And they say RSA is now broken. :)
>
> Oh, there haven't been any *new* seminal developments in crypto in
> years. RSA stands as long as the assumption that factoring a number
> is a problem of exponential order stands. If you crack my 128-bit
> encryption, I can double your cost by adding one bit to the algorithm.
....

Funny stuff. The 128 kinda dates your textbook.
Normal s/w these days will stop you using anything less than 512.

Imagine being so detached from reality that the President
of the United States is paying for terrorist attacks on
the streets of Moscow and you're pissing yourself in fear
over the thought that the planet may warm up to something
closer to it's pre ice age norm...

You're well trained, not well informed.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5