Posted on 10/21/2016 3:17:02 PM PDT by Quicksilver
The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate.
I think Assange is in custody. Haven’t seen him in a few days.
What does that mean?
jst to clarify my earlier post, I meant that Jullian has assigned someone to act on his behalf since he is unable.
Post 62 was for you.
Stochastic Terminator algorithim is a phrase Wiki used when they first started leaking Podesta. I understood it to mean the scheduled timing of leaks we’ve seen the last 12 days or so. Tonight they say they have updated the algorithim...sounds to me like its SHTF time.
Oh wow! Thank you for that info.
Let’s say someone wants your ice cream to melt.
In this case, why should they bother trying to mess with your refrigerator when they can cut the electricity to the entire city. They don’t care about any of the city and it is easier to shutdown all the electricity than this or that part of it, as it all can be rerouted as long as other parts are up.
Exactly. Anything less is not a deadman.
There have to be SOME Rats that are not totally dirty and think they can survive Hillary. Maybe not.
To me it doesn’t make sense that Wikileaks would be behind this. Why would they want to impede access to their material. Cherche le Femme. Cui bono, and all that. In this case Hillary. I would expect that today was down by our own gummint.
While I personally would not pretend to know anything about it, I would think logic would dictate that if one had anything you wanted to secure behind encryption if you had the ability you would want to produce your own. Anything “off the shelf” would mean you could never be certain that what you were trying to secure, actually was secure.
As for me, personally, the answer is simple, do not have behavior or discussions that require such security. The old expression, “The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.” comes to mind.
I wonder why Trump is not promoting this video and making it go viral? This is great stuff. The criminals should easily be identified.
Who said this about whom?
It can be taken in different ways. Here is one interpretation, but I don't know if it is correct:
The Obama administration has done something to Julian Assange in order to disrupt the publishing of information that is damaging to the Clinton campaign.
The Wikileaks people are taking down the US Internet in order to make a point--release Julian Assange and let Wikileaks publish.
The Obama administration concedes that Mr. Assange is alive and well and pleads that Wikileaks should stop their disruption on the Internet.
Is this what they mean?
Totally agree, and with this morning’s tweet from Wikileaks we are, in fact, waiting for the best that is yet to come...Popcorn run later!
Wikileaks wants more communicaton. The democrats want less communication — and a scapegoat.
‘Couldn’t someone run billions of combinations to get access? or is that just in the movies’
That works with old systems. I hope and pray Obama hasn’t kept us THAT antiquited.
But I’m not a tech guy.
Palmer is.
My fuzzy understanding is this:
Modern systems are protected through offering you only a few chances — like four — within a short period of time. Then there are ‘cool down’ periods which can get longer and longer. That prevents ‘powering’ as I understand it.
The concept of powering began as an automatic safe cracking machine. It had a spinner [probably not the right term but ...], an automated spinning machine modeled after a lathe that you put on the safe’s dial. It would ‘power’ its way through every possible number to cause each tumbler to ‘click’.
It is not impossible that the NSA could have fooled the world's experts and gotten positive reviews of algorithms (e.g. AES) with security flaws. But if that is the case it would be because of a vastly superior and completely secret NSA technology to brute force or bypass the security. Brute force is plausible and described in academic literature but with technology that is completely speculative (e.g. large scale quantum computing). Bypasses are not in the literature AFAIK and would be unlikely with the exception of minor weaknesses that would reduce the brute force computing requirements. See Schneier for descriptions of those.
There is also evidence that the Chinese have rolled their own perhaps for those reasons. But that is probably a bad idea given alternatives like adding rounds to a public algorithm. If you simply add rounds you greatly increase the brute force computation requirements at the cost of a bit more computing on your end.
Even better if an attacker fails with some number of obvious passwords (e.g. pass, password, pass123, changeme, etc) then the remote system can determine that it is being attacked. At that point the remote system can redirect the attacker into a honeypot. Now the trick is to fool the attacker into thinking they got in when they did not. That means presenting delicious looking data that is actually fake. The whole idea is to waste the attacker's time and computing resources in a giant dead end.
Even better is to draw the attacker into the honeypot and then assume that the attacker uses insecure code to parse the data that they steal. Then present the attacker with delicious looking data that actually contains your own trojan horses. The attacker steals the data and starts to parse it on their machine and the data exploits a weakness in their parse and takes over their machine. Now you are not just wasting the attacker's time, but you are potentially destroying some of their capability.
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.