FBI Virus Cracks Encryption - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: FBI Virus Cracks Encryption

  1. #11
    Originally posted by Rewandythal
    Agreed.
    I don't think it's right that any government monitor the internet generically, they may target specific people they are looking for info on, though... if they suspect someone to be involved in crimes over the net, then by all means let them log everything they do...

    We've been over this before. My major concern is who decides if someone should be monitored? A fat polotician who has lost touch with the general public? No thanks.


    For example.... Just say I've just ran a search @ google for the infamous Anarchists Cookbook. Do alarm bells start ringing in some spooks office? Am I know considered a criminal? Will I be monitored? Will some Anti Terrorist Organisation kick my door down in the middle of the night?


    jcdux- I don't think you're being paranoid at all. Actually, I'm quite impressed by the way you think..........
    Share on Google+

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    677
    OK OK I meant KNOWN CRIMINALS. I keep doing this today, not making myself clear enough.

    If you're searching for stuff like the anarchists cookbook, youre most likely a 12 year old who's gonna read it then not have enough money to try anything from it [i have friends who've been there a couple three years ago!]

    the govt. probably know that
    But if you're exchanging millions of credit card numbers every day using PGP encrypted files, well surel;y the govt. have every right to get the key and decrypt it to stop you?

    I'm talking about building evidence in ongoing investigations, not monitoring evertyones internet searches and e-mail

    I disapprove of that myself, I dont want people knowing what I put in my e-mails, but i think people overreact a bit sometimes maybe.

    I'm not saying don't be paranoid, but if you;ve nothing to hide, why use PGP anyway?

    Rhetorical Question - cos i know everyone will try to answer it!!

    Anyway all im saying is, yes be paranoid, take care of what you send to who and how, use encryption, use AV scanners and firewalls, but in the end as long as your not the FBIs most wanted, do they REALLY care that much about you?
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them.
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    (The Lord Of The Rings)
    http://www.bytekill.net
    Share on Google+

  3. #13

    Post

    Originally posted by Rewandythal

    I disapprove of that myself, I dont want people knowing what I put in my e-mails, but i think people overreact a bit sometimes maybe.
    I'm not saying don't be paranoid, but if you;ve nothing to hide, why use PGP anyway?

    I'd like to quote Negatives' signature if I may-

    Trust and you'll be trusted, says the liar to the fool.

    I think I'll just leave it at that. I assume that all the regulars know my position on antiprivacy laws and I won't go to the trouble of repeating myself, not to mention boring everyone...
    Share on Google+

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    677
    OK. I'm starting to think more & more that all this monitoring is wrong actually... In the course of a few hours I've read up on it on the net... and My opinion is gradually changing!
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them.
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    (The Lord Of The Rings)
    http://www.bytekill.net
    Share on Google+

  5. #15
    Old-Fogey:Addicts founder Terr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,007

    Re: This is not new at all...

    Originally posted by mr_unforgiven
    Trust me this is not new at all and to close this out...PGP is not "pretty good at all" because if you knew the sequence/formula then you would know that it is a weak program to begin with! It is stictly logical...anything that can be ciphered can be deciphered!
    Well, actually, no. Let's say that I make an algorithm to cipher something. Except my method of making ciphertext involves making random characters. That's it. Are you going to decipher a file made of totally random characters?

    Do you mean PGP is weak because of: (check all that apply)

    Weak Keys
    Weak Algorithm
    Bad implementation

    Key length is pretty variable, I was given to understand. Just keep adding bits until you have it as powerful as you need, since the possibilities increase exponentially for a linear increase in key size...

    As for the algorithm... What do you mean? It's PUBLIC/PRIVATE key cyptography. Just because I can encrypt a message with my key X, turning it into ciphertext, doesn't mean I can decrypt the exact same ciphertext with the same key. It is set up so that is not possible.

    Basically, you can only decrypt messages made with key A with key B, and only decrypt messages made with key B by using key A to decrypt... Were you thinking that PGP was a single-key system? The algorithm code isn't secret.
    [HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
    Share on Google+

  6. #16

    Re: Re: FBI Virus Cracks Encryption

    Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll


    I have to agree......



    Could you give me the link to the site that you got this information from?
    The address is at www.techtv.com/news/
    -=SolarisMKA=-
    Share on Google+

  7. #17
    I was just thinking, M$ being what it is I figure that the FBI would brobably be able to crack any of the M$ Boxes and deploy the virous. But could they do it on another operating system like linux, BSD or even Apple..............


    And could they crack M$ O.S's in the first place.

    Attachments is one thing but what about the exploits that M$ Has.

    Like in WinXP The could spoof a packet to exploit the remote Desktop Feature that comes with Xp and the off load the Virous.........

    Would an anti virus software detect the problem or would they just ignore it, just because its the FBI that did it????.............

    I was thinking mabe we should start writing our own Dat files. They said that it is similar to Magic Lantern. If mabe I can get my anti-virous software to detect it then maybe that in itself would give me a leg up..... Or mabe I should just change OS'es or something. Right now I'm using Win ME for my desktop and linux for my server. Mabe I should use linux for my desktop as well or mabe some BSD system????....................

    Hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    -=SolarisMKA=-
    Share on Google+

  8. #18

    Re: Re: This is not new at all...

    I knew that pgp isn't all that good, there was an Open Source encription program that was better that gov't standards, damn what was it called ?????........................
    -=SolarisMKA=-
    Share on Google+

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    1,027
    What are you all people talking about saying that PGP isnt all that good??!?! Heck, it's been peer reviewed by hundreds of experts and has been an industry standard for years...

    Anyone cares to explain???
    Share on Google+

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    485
    In reply to ammos post about PGP.

    The original algorithm for PGP was published in a scientific journal about 20/25 years ago. At the time it was accompanied by a mathematical analysis of the algorithm used, which as far as I know has not been refuted to this day. Mind you, even with a maths degree, this is pretty difficult to follow (speaking from personal experience!).

    In essence you take two very large numbers (the private & public keys), and use these to do the encryption. To decrypt you need the number (private key) of the recipient. From a mathematical viewpoint it relies on the fact that you have an extremely large number X, which is made up as a result of multiplying Y * Z.
    X is freely available, but to decrypt the message as an outsider you need to find out what Y or Z are. If I gave you a number that was several hundred digits long, could you tell me what two original numbers were multiplied together to create it?

    Of course, the real weakness is not in the algorithm itself, but how it is used in practice (e.g. using non random keys, allowing unauthorised access to the PC etc. etc.)
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides