full-disclosure - Re: Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?

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]

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:12:19 +0000
From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
	<cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk>
To: decoder <decoder@...-hero.net>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?

Heh, now that would be interesting. I wonder if the "intent" scenario would
apply to this also?

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, decoder <decoder@...-hero.net> wrote:

>  I can't answer the question but it would be even more interesting to
> answer this if you're using a One-Time-Pad (i.e. two files of equal size on
> two different servers, both XORed give you the data). There exists a
> mathematical proof that none of the two files leak a single bit of
> information of the original data :)
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On 02/18/2011 07:50 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] wrote:
>
> Sorry, when I say eligible, I mean "which server would they be allowed to
> take down by law?".
>
>  I'm not too hot on the laws of encryption, but I'm sure there is
> something which states that hosting encrypted files are not illegal, it's
> distributing the key which allows you to gain access to those fails, which
> is actually illegal.
>
>  *DISCLAIMER: I don't know if the above is true or not, so apologies if I
> got this wrong*
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, ck <c.kernstock@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
> I go with the server hosting the files since the key should be
> significant smaller than the files and therefor much easier to mirror.
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
> <cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:
> > So here's a thought.
> > If illegally distributed files (such as this one) were encrypted and
> hosted
> > on one server, and the key hosted on another, which server would
> > be eligible for take down?
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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