Re: Fact checking

Damian Gerow wrote: Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! > [...] I don't see any way to educate the mass public. Indeed, why

BBC on all-electronic Indian elections

Current report: The tech: Bit scant on details.. anyone know anything more about how the machine (/system) "is fully tamper-proof"? .g -- "I Me My! Strawberry Eggs"

"Hey be careful, I have three bombs in here"

Surprised this hasn't gone through the list yet. Did it get much coverage in the US? 'According to the arrest report, Miss Marson placed her bag on the belt at a security check, telling a Transportation Security Administration screene

Re: QuizID

On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 3:15 pm, Adam Shostack wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2334491.stm > and www.quizid.com [snip] > > The card works in conjunction with the Quizid vault - a large > > collection of computers that can process 600 authentications per > > second. The system cost mi

Re: Interesting KPMG report on DRM

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter Gutmann wrote: | KPMG have a report "The Digital Challenge: Are You Prepared?" available at | http://www.kpmg.com/news/index.asp?cid=660 [snip] | Media companies have so far failed to pioneer new business models that would | rob piracy of its ap

Re: JYA ping

Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Anonymous wrote: > >>Cryptome has nor been updated since 9/23 ... any clues, anyone ? > > No. Anyone knows whether John Young is okay? Can't get through to http://www.jya.com/ either (plus Google hasn't cached it, for some reason...?) - can't resolve it

RC5-64 solved

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just noticed on /. that distributed.net wound up 4 years of intense CPU cycles, by getting the key to RSA's RC5-64 challenge. Distributed.net release: http://www.distributed.net/pressroom/news-20020926.html "On 14-Jul-2002, a relatively characterles

Re: Hollywood Hackers

Anonymous wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:24 -0700, you wrote: > >>When we approve a file, all the people who approved it already get >>added to our trust list, thus helping us select files, and we are >>told that so and so got added to our list of people who recommend >>good files. This give

Re: CNN.com - Bush to announce new intelligence agency - June 6, 2002

Jim Choate wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/06/bush.security/index.html "...Answering questions about the creation of the 'Department for Prevention of ThoughtCrime', Bush noted that this was 'clearly a step in the plusgood direction'..."

Re: FC: Hollywood wants to plug "analog hole," regulate A-D

Mike Rosing wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Dave Emery wrote: > >> And telling the public that they face serious jail time if they >>don't turn in that Creative Soundblaster from the old PC in the attic >>closet isn't going to fly. The sheeple may be sheep but even they >>aren't going to acce

Re: sources on steganography

Hector Rosario wrote: > Why would I be interested in "fool[ing] [you]." All I asked was for some > help with sources. If you cannot be of help, at least don't be a > hindrance. Besides, don't claim to speak for others. If envy is what > drives you, then I suggest that you work on that. > > hr >

Re: When encryption is also authentication...

Mike Rosing wrote: > If digital crypto, signatures or e-cash are going to get into mass appeal, > then their operations will be "magic" to the majority. And it all has to > work, to 1 part in 10^8th or better, without user comprehension. > > It may well take "user intervention" to create a si

Re: Got carried away...

Jan Dobrucki wrote: > I do have an idea thou. I'm thinking how to implement PGP into car > locks. And so far I got this: The driver has his PGP, and the door > has it's own. Path of least resistance - *access* to the car is generally not the problem. Instead weaker attacks such as breaking the

Re: FUCANN Fully UnCentrallized Authority for Naming and Numbers

Frob the Builder wrote: >> The problem comes when the server a domain points to is the map >>for several domains, say via Virtual Hosts or selected forwarding. Many servers >>use this if they're on a dedicated web-hoster, or for subdomains. > > Ahah, because the 'physical' server uses the URL to

Re: FUCANN Fully UnCentrallized Authority for Naming and Numbers

Hey Frob, all. Been kicking this concept around my head for a while, but never really thought about it seriously. Interested in taking it further and seeing what can be done with it though. Practical usage aside (a separate issue), here are some technical comments... Frob the Builder wrote: >