Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
TFW when a bunch of crypto fanboys think they're beating the gov: :D 2016-10-08 09:32:58 Post No. 56978032
[Report] Image search: [Google]
TFW when a bunch of crypto fanboys think they're beating the gov: :D 2016-10-08 09:32:58 Post No. 56978032
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: crypto.jpg (138KB, 660x495px) Image search:
[Google]
138KB, 660x495px
TFW when a bunch of crypto fanboys think they're beating the gov: :D
Anonymous
2016-10-08 09:32:58
Post No. 56978032
[Report]
Remember: Public crypto fucks discovered differential cryptanalysis in the early '90s, only to learn that DES S-boxes had been carefully designed in the '70s to be resistant against differential cryptanalysis. Even now we see these public crypto fucks baffled by design decisions -- e.g., with subtle changes made to the compression sub-functions in the SHA algorithms.
SIGINT mathematical capabilities are most likely decades ahead of the public -- it's all they've been doing, 24/7, for many, many decades -- so LOL @ all these crypto tards who wank on about large key sizes, infeasible computing power, and whatnot.
Not to mention that all these C-based crypto implementations have shown themselves to be untrustworthy garbage, so the algorithms themselves are largely a moot point anyway.
>>
(minus a redundant 'when' in the title!)
>>
>>56978032
That was a massive load of autism, OP.
Are you feeling lighter now?
>>
>>56978117
Not autism. Sadism. It's vicious to disabuse the privacy warriorz of their cherished delusions like that.
>>
>>56978117
Why wouldn't I be feeling lighter?
>>
>>56978032
>op attends his first introduction to cryptography class
>>
>>56978204
>Sadism
Autism*
Must be fun having you in parties, neckbeard
>>
The people who did that are all retired.
And they didn't know about linear cryptanalysis, didn't know the extent of the Wang attack until it was far too late, ignored public-key cryptography because they couldn't see why it would be useful in their organisations, actually aren't very good at cipher design, and really use Dual_EC_DRBG as an RNG for critical things themselves even though it has a trapdoor and a well-known bias in the output.
SIGINT mathematical capabilities are almost precisely in line with civilian in most areas. They have no secret sauce, aside from a very big budget - a big advantage - and the ability to fab ASICs. And they have an incredible amount of bureaucracy that can't find its arse with both hands - see what's happening at the moment.
Their work in formal verification is interesting (makes sense given their threat model and their colossal budget), and is being published to some extent - see the Rockwell Collins AAMP7G. https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/Products/Information_Assurance/Cryptography/AAMP7G_Microprocessor.aspx
>>
>>56978594
Unlikely. Noobs are more likely to be all "crypto rah rah!"
>>
>>56979164
> And they didn't know about linear cryptanalysis
Actually, some believe that the reason they defended against differential cryptanalysis was that they had much stronger attacks, whether that be linear cryptanalysis or something more devastating.
> didn't know the extent of the Wang attack until it was far too late, ignored public-key cryptography because they couldn't see why it would be useful in their organisations, actually aren't very good at cipher design, and really use Dual_EC_DRBG as an RNG for critical things themselves even though it has a trapdoor and a well-known bias in the output.
All of which rests on the assumption that their public releases are made in good faith. It's interesting to note that even the crypto fanboys do not believe this to be the case.
> SIGINT mathematical capabilities are almost precisely in line with civilian in most areas.
Where might one verify your claim?
>>
>>56978620
/g/ neckbeard doesn't like OP spoiling his GNUtard fantasies. What else is new?
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1