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: <optid.1779c0f98b.58DB1B68E62B9F448DF1A276B0886DF12DB549AF@EX2010.hammerofgod.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:10:59 +0000
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
To: musnt live <musntlive@...il.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: My private key

You're killin me over here ;)

And while funny, you actually do raise a good point - I should not use the term "totally secure" like that.  Rather, I should say that the encryption mechanisms used are based on industry standards and accepted mechanisms for strong encryption:  RSA2048 asymmetric, AES256 symmetric, and SHA256.  

I should have a full work up by the end of the weekend.

t

>-----Original Message-----
>From: musnt live [mailto:musntlive@...il.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:09 AM
>To: Thor (Hammer of God)
>Cc: Benji; Larry Seltzer; full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 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/