full-disclosure - Re: My private key

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTilO9rBdzbA22KYpAoNKM49AL93iU6AyNMDtDXyi@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:08:34 -0400
From: musnt live <musntlive@...il.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: My private key

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<Thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:

> It’s totally portable, totally secure,

Hello Full Disclosure, I'd like to warn you about "totally secure" and
rubber hose cryptography. While Thor's bold statement of totally
secure is so to say potential and possible the interrogators at Camp
X-Ray beg to differ. Yes list "creative questioning" can yield Thor or
anyone else's key and can be mathematically proving using a patended
Craig S. Wright algorithm:

Let P(n) be the statement that says that key+password+...+n = (n/2)(n+1)

Firstly P(n) has to be checked for n=N, which is impossible

It cannot be shown that the truth of P(k-1) implies the truth of P(k).
Because, P(k-1) is the statement key+password+...+(k-1) = ((k-1)/2)k,
which is assumed to be true for k greater than or equal to 2 however N
cannot be calculated.

Next add k to both sides of statement P(k-1) to get
key+password+...+(k-1)+k = ((k-1)/2)k+k. Taking out a factor of k on
the right hand side of the equation leaves key+password+...+k =
(((k-1)/2)+1)k = k((k/2) + (1/2)) =(k/2)(k+1), which implies that P(k)
is true. Condition 2 has been satisfied.

Both conditions of the statement for the principle of mathematical
induction have been satisfied but N is never established and the proof
is inconclusive, in other words P(n) is true for all positive integers
n and nothing more given that: B(eer)||T(orture)||M(oney) trump all
so:

B+M=P(*) || T=P(*)

Please contact Mr. Wright LLC, PhD, DDS, CISSP, GSE, GSE, GSE for
future risk metrics. Did forget I mention GSE?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/