On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:12:19PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>>
>> The mentioned tech has nothing to do with traditional 'ham'.
>> And without the crypto key they can't see it and can't disrupt
>
> HamNet/AMPRNet ...
> Of course they can see it, it's a TCP/IP network
Age has nothing to do with it, the math doesn't change. As or AKNOS, their is
actually a lot of controversy over that book and the claims Wolfram makes.
Kyle Maxwell wrote:
> Fairly old, but "Chaos" by James Gleick was a huge influence on me as
> a young man and has some responsibility for
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:12:19PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > I don't see how a ham running a repeater backbone can
> > prevent end to end encryption other than sniffing for
> > traffic and actively disrupting it. I'm not sure tampering
> > with transport is within
Fairly old, but "Chaos" by James Gleick was a huge influence on me as
a young man and has some responsibility for the academic path I chose
later.
@kylemaxwell
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM, wrote:
> Wolfram's book is about CAs and not chaos/fractals in general.
>
> For an initial intro you
On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> I don't see how a ham running a repeater backbone can
> prevent end to end encryption other than sniffing for
> traffic and actively disrupting it. I'm not sure tampering
> with transport is within ham ethics, though they definitely
> don't understand the actual us
https://www.cdt.org/blogs/joseph-lorenzo-hall/2409-nist-sha-3
What the heck is going on with NIST’s cryptographic standard, SHA-3?
by Joseph Lorenzo Hall [1]
September 24, 2013
(Warning: this is a fairly technical post about cryptographic standards
setting.)
The cryptographic community has be
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:12:16PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> The US only applies to itself. Further, over the air, it's noise, the crypto
> is undetectable and unprovable. And it's (guerilla) software, not physical
> commercial product. Nor is this the old 'FCC says you can't encrypt
> ham bands' a
Paul Bakker writes:
>So you agree we DO need an additional layer of symmetric and public key
>encryption, don't you? Six layers might not be enough!!
Oh everyone knows that, if it doesn't have the full seven layers then you're
not even trying.
Peter.
___
