91–100 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not simply make the cryptographically secure service opt-in?
This is the real reason why cryptography hasn't caught on. It's opt-in by nature - No matter how hard you try, you can't send someone an encrypted message if they don't have a public key for you to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the old rubber-hose cryptanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis However, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy OTR does provide "perfect forward secrecy as well as deniable encryption". Doesn't that provide some protection against rubber-hose cryptanalysis?
Perfect Forward Secrecy means that even if you want to you cannot decrypt old messages, since the keys used are ephemeral and destroyed at the end of the session.
Which means, if they're jailing you until you do decrypt the messages, you get jailed indefinitely. Contempt of court has very few limits in some circumstances, even compared to being imprisoned after being convicted of a crime:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This simply isn't true. Even if you (with likely a few orders of magnitude margin) overestimate total world computing capacity at 1e21 decryption operations per second it's going to take you about age-of-the-universe seconds to brute force a single 128 bit key. No amount of money or supposed 'exponential technology growth' is going to let any government brute force these anytime soon. And those are the smallest symme…
Compute power is far from the most effective brute force method to get someone's encryption key. Other means include; rendition, waterboarding, jail, similar threats and keyloggers.
> NSA-proof encryption exists. Yup. Except it's not that easy. Let's say that you're using OTR to provide very strong end-to-end encryption for a conversation between yourself and a buddy, Bob. Maybe he's in a hostile area, and you're worried that if his government sniffs his traffic, that he could be executed for speaking to Americans. Data in transit that is intercepted, if configured correctly, is almost certainly…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/03/13/cryptog...
Not many people use crypto because in general it's hard to set up and hard to use. A webapp is accessible and easy to use and provide reasonable security.
I know there's a prevailing view against doing crypto in Javascript, and I've gone the extra steps to address the negatives. At the end I think the benefits of doing javascript on the browser outweigh the negatives. See https://boxuptext.com/faq#benefits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The resolution of a lens at a given wavelength is determined by its diameter (Rayleigh function). We know how big the launch vehicles are, so we can estimate the largest size a spy satellite's mirror could be, and we can use that to compute the maximum resolution a satellite could have; it turns out to be something around 5-10 cm. In order to resolve a newspaper from near-earth orbit, you'd need a lens bigger than th…
Would it be possible to improve the resolution of optical imagery using a synthetic aperture?
I don't trust SSL, for various reasons of implementation and many, many questions about weak links in the PKI chain, etc.
But I rely on SSH. I'd like very much to see some kind of assurance that this is a reasonable thing to rely on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perfect Forward Secrecy means that even if you want to you cannot decrypt old messages, since the keys used are ephemeral and destroyed at the end of the session.
> Perfect Forward Secrecy means that even if you want to you cannot decrypt old messages Which means, if they're jailing you until you do decrypt the messages, you get jailed indefinitely. Contempt of court has very few limits in some circumstances, even compared to being imprisoned after being convicted of a crime: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1262859.html
Maybe, but they wouldn't be waiting for you to do something for them. They would understand that there was nothing you could do to help them decrypt the messages. i.e. your encryption worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perfect Forward Secrecy means that even if you want to you cannot decrypt old messages, since the keys used are ephemeral and destroyed at the end of the session.
> Perfect Forward Secrecy means that even if you want to you cannot decrypt old messages Which means, if they're jailing you until you do decrypt the messages, you get jailed indefinitely. Contempt of court has very few limits in some circumstances, even compared to being imprisoned after being convicted of a crime: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1262859.html