Encryption: how big a key to you need for security? 14 digits now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RayLopez99
  • Start date Start date
I recommend you google cryptology and do some research and then the
information which has already been provided to you will make much more
sense. Your question has been answered.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell was the answer, shiite for brains? You a mystery
writer or what?

RL
 
BTW you failed to explain HTTPS security as well, but then again I
don't expect much from you.

***
I and others have explained it, you *still* fail to understand it. Your
idea that encrypted data can magically decrypt itself without a key
shows your inability to comprehend the subject.
***
Click to expand...

Nope. You failed to demonstrate why intermediary S would have a
public key, unless said key was explicitly granted by C or Z.

***
I never said anything about "S", I said *ass*.

You said data magically decrypts itself somehow and that keys weren't
involved at all. I only pointed out that the receiving entity decrypts the
data making it uncovered while at rest.

Do you want to say that my answer in this thread is wrong also, or would you
rather just cut your losses?
***
 
Do you want to say that my answer in this thread is wrong also, or would you
rather just cut your losses?
***
Click to expand...

What "answer"? you have FAILED to answer anything, Rafters!

Answer the question moron: how does S, ASS, get permission to
decipher? From C or Z or both (in your opinion, flawed as it is)?

RL
 
Do you want to say that my answer in this thread is wrong also, or
would you
rather just cut your losses?
***
Click to expand...

What "answer"? you have FAILED to answer anything, Rafters!

***
You have FAILED to understand my answers. I don't hold any hope of you
actually understanding any of it. If you ask more concise questions, I
may have to get less general with my answers.
***

Answer the question moron: how does S, ASS, get permission to
decipher?

***
There you go again with the insults - It doesn't, and I never said that
it did, in fact I implied that it would remain encrypted until someone
you trusted with a *key* decrypted it (only as secure as the key
management is) - at which point you called me names and told me that
keys had nothing to do with it and that it was being magically decrypted
somehow.

You clearly don't understand encryption and the different ways it can be
used. I'm beginning to think that you don't have the capability to
understand.
***

From C or Z or both (in your opinion, flawed as it is)?

***
C and Z share a symmetric key that is unique to that session, there are
no others with a key (and yes, keys are indeed used despite what you may
think).

Are you ready to attack me for my other answer?

I'll wait.
***
 
Dustin said:
(e-mail address removed):


I have to admit, You can be a funny troll.
Click to expand...

I agree (I like the "shiite for brains" reference, but I doubt he did
that on purpose).
 
Hello, FromTheRafters!

You wrote on Fri, 5 Nov 2010 07:11:15 -0400:

| I and others have explained it, you *still* fail to understand it. Your
| idea that encrypted data can magically decrypt itself without a key
| shows your inability to comprehend the subject.
|
| Plus, you are an ass.
| ***
+ a troll too :)
 
gufus said:
Hello, FromTheRafters!

You wrote on Fri, 5 Nov 2010 07:11:15 -0400:

| I and others have explained it, you *still* fail to understand it. Your
| idea that encrypted data can magically decrypt itself without a key
| shows your inability to comprehend the subject.
|
| Plus, you are an ass.
| ***
+ a troll too :)
Click to expand...

He probably asks about viruses in the crypto groups too.

Well, hardware participants are, of course, welcomed to ignore a thread -
but just in case they are pissed off at me, or conversely interested in this
conversation, I won't continue with him in this particular thread while it
is crossposted.
 
From: "FromTheRafters" <[email protected]>


| He probably asks about viruses in the crypto groups too.

| Well, hardware participants are, of course, welcomed to ignore a thread -
| but just in case they are pissed off at me, or conversely interested in this
| conversation, I won't continue with him in this particular thread while it
| is crossposted.


I like that POV.
 
Well I thought somebody in this group would know whether the Windows
password algorithm was like the PGP algorithm. I guess not, since
Opchrack can crack it easily, and I've not heard that claim being made
for PGP.

RL
Click to expand...

That program worked on a couple of test cases, but not when I needed it.
Use these things before you make claims in ng's.
In my opinion, you are not looking for answers, just a little stirring
things up and apparently with some success.
 
That program worked on a couple of test cases, but not when I needed it.
Use these things before you make claims in ng's.
Click to expand...

I don't want to use Opchrack. I want to see if others can use it to
get into my XP system.
In my opinion, you are not looking for answers, just a little stirring
things up and apparently with some success.
Click to expand...

Nope. Try again. But it's interesting that you apparently used
Opchrack and it failed--which does give me some level of comfort.
Feel free to share what size the password was--apparently Op* can
crack any Windows password below 14 digits (they say).

RL
 
Well, hardware participants are, of course, welcomed to ignore a thread -
but just in case they are pissed off at me, or conversely interested in this
conversation, I won't continue with him in this particular thread while it
is crossposted.
Click to expand...

***
Yep, I learned that you are a stupid troll.

Bye-bye
***
Click to expand...

Here's
a reference for you to 'bone up' on, bonehead: (http://
msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733137%28VS.90%29.aspx “End-to-end
security. A secure transport, such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)
works
only when the communication is point-to-point. If the message is
routed to one or more SOAP intermediaries before reaching the
ultimate
receiver, the message itself is not protected once an intermediary
reads it from the wire. "

EXPLAIN WHY MESSAGE IS NOT PROTECTED ONCE AN INTERMEDIARY SOAP IS
PRESENT, DOPE.

Ball is in your court. Cowardice and evasion noted.

RL
 
Hi FromTheRafters,

Saturday November 06 2010, FromTheRafters writes to gufus:

He probably asks about viruses in the crypto groups too.

-+- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
+ Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
(1:342/77.10)
Click to expand...

--
K Klement

Enhance your marketing at http://www.gypsy-designs.com
mailto:[email protected]
Gypsy Designs Fax: (403) 242-3221

.... Hello...Incontinence Hotline". "Can you hold, please?
 
Hello, David!

You wrote on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:02:44 -0400:

|> I agree (I like the "shiite for brains" reference, but I doubt he did
|> that on purpose).
|
| :-)
|
:) :)
 
Back
Top