Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PRIVACY: HOW TO COMMUNICATE?
self ^ | 5/10/09 | A Navy Vet

Posted on 05/10/2009 5:43:05 PM PDT by A Navy Vet

With the ever encroaching Fedgov looking in and trying to control our personal lives, I'm looking for way that Americans can still communicate privately.

I understand that any answers given on this public forum, may alert the various gov agencies to a new work-around. I'm hoping someone can provide a fool proof answer even on this public board.

Internet e-mail and forums are easily compromised (ISP's easliy traceable); phone conversations, well, we all know about taps; Ham radio can be intercepted; CB radio the same. And no, face to face comms and devised codes are not the answer I'm looking for - too cumbersome and too slow. Same as snail-mail.

Although there are a few encrypted Internet programs out there such as PGP phone, that particular one is buggy depending on your computer setup (power, memory, firewalls, anti-virus, etc.).

Is anyone aware of any other encrypted Internet programs that the average person doesn't need an expensive doomsday program and a $10,000 server that will simply facilitate privacy? If not Internet, how can anyone possibly have a private conversation? What am I missing...???


TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Education; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: communication; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 last
To: A Navy Vet

Odds are, the person with whom you will need to share coded info with is someone you already communicate with on a regular basis. In order to disguise your important messages, you could send unimportant messages or even gibberish on a routine basis. If they have 1,000 messages to sort through in order to find the one, you will gain some time.

That’s not a real solution to your issue, but there is some safety in obscurity.


101 posted on 05/10/2009 9:36:21 PM PDT by Stegall Tx (Democrats: raising your taxes; cheating on theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Thats why they use key words.

An encrypted keyword is still encrypted. It still requires the expenditure of computer time to decode and render into a searchable keyword. This has loads of interesting stuff...

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=38aY
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

...but until it's decrypted, it's useless gibberish. Furthermore, it's gibberish encrypted with a 2048-bit key. (And in this case, with open source software; where one cannot hide backdoors in the source code!) Unless some old-fashioned detective work is done first, there's no way to know if it's worth decrypting.

102 posted on 05/10/2009 11:30:10 PM PDT by Redcloak ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt

Fort Huachuca probably tries but I think they key in on certain word/names only.
But you probably are more conversant about such things than I am.


103 posted on 05/11/2009 12:01:35 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine

Just to be on the safe side don’t say anything about that black van in front of your house, they’re trying to blend in.


104 posted on 05/11/2009 12:07:06 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Actually, if the key is truly random and one-time, it can’t be broken. Think through the scenario. Assume the ciphertext is 1000 characters long, enciphered from 1000 characters of plaintext with a 1000 byte, non repeating key. How will the guys trying to crack the cipher know when they’ve succeeded? By getting a viable plaintext message. But for any 1000 characters of plaintext, there is some 1000 byte key that will produce the ciphertext. If the key is totally random, how are they to know which plaintext solution is the right one?


105 posted on 05/16/2009 11:00:29 AM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“Actually, if the key is truly random and one-time, it can’t be broken.”

depends on how long the key is, how long the message is, and how random it is. Also depends on what encryption method is used.

“If the key is totally random, how are they to know which plaintext solution is the right one?”

That is where judgement comes into play. The randomness of the key is only one small factor.


106 posted on 05/16/2009 11:06:33 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

What I’m saying is that if the key is truly random and full length, it will produce random ciphertext. This ciphertext is equally likely (cipherwise) to have come from any clear text passage of the same length, of which there are infinitely many. So there are an infinite number of solutions, and if the key is random, there’s no clue which are more likely than others. You could make an educated guess based on subject matter and what you know about the sender, but remember, ANY 1000 character clear text can produce the cipher text, so it’s pretty much like knowing nothing at all. Now, one could reason in reverse and calculate what the key would have had to have been for any conceivable clear text, and if you think the sender is cryptographically sophisticated, you could throw out the candidates that would need crappy keys to generate the ciphertext, but I don’t see what else you can do.


107 posted on 05/16/2009 11:13:10 AM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“What I’m saying is that if the key is truly random and full length, it will produce random ciphertext”

Whats full length? Keys come in increments of 8 with the normal key length being 256. Some software tools will use keys of over 2000.

There is not an infinite number of solutions. It is definately a finite although very high number. With todays computers it is not nearly as difficult as it once was to break a key.

“but I don’t see what else you can do.”

There is a science used to break these codes.


108 posted on 05/16/2009 4:13:39 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

No, no, I’m not talking the type encryption generally done on a PC with 40-bit, or 56-bit, or 128-, or 256-, 1024-, etc, but “one-time pad”, though that can certainly be done on a PC. In that context, “full length” means if you want to encode 1000 characters of clear text, you will need 1000 truly random bytes of keytext. And — you can only use any given bit of keytext once, or you introduce a vulnerability that’s susceptible to statistical analysis, at least if the cryptanalyst knows or suspects that you may have reused keytext. And, yes, I realize I said “infinite” when I shouldn’t have.


109 posted on 05/16/2009 6:45:46 PM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

A straight character for character substitution is not that secure.


110 posted on 05/16/2009 6:51:20 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Supposedly a “one time pad” as I’ve described is unbreakable. Now if you’re talking about something that translates one character to a different one according to a rule like “replace each character with the one three letters farther along in the alphabet” or a fixed cipher where each character is replaced by the same other character throughout the message, you’re correct.


111 posted on 05/16/2009 7:00:27 PM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“Supposedly a “one time pad” as I’ve described is unbreakable.”

I probably wasn’t clear in my ‘character for character’ description. The weak point is that language has rules. There are only so many words and only so many letters.

Given the desire and enough computer time every cipher is essentially breakable.


112 posted on 05/16/2009 7:08:57 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I think we’re talking past one another. Check out the term “one time pad” and think through the mathemagical implications of that type cipher and the resulting randomness of the ciphertext.


113 posted on 05/16/2009 7:13:52 PM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson