108000+ entries in 0.056s
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, and
the "that many attacks against RSA dont work with ECC" claim is especially odious, as it comes from a single source, which is a criminal org with a history of manipulatively lying. what happens is
that usg publishes every ~useless "attack" on rsa and withholds
the few ~working~ attacks on ecc from publishing.
then you get
this situation where seemingly, for
the very naive surface-seekers, "ecc has advantages". it h
Darwin_Fish: 27 "so
that
they should seek
the Lord, in
the hope
that
they might grope for Him and find Him,
though He is not far from each one of us;
Darwin_Fish: If I understand your question,
the answer is no.
This is God's purpose: And He has made from one blood every nation of men
to dwell on all
the face of
the earth, and has determined
their preappointed
times and
the boundaries of
their dwellings,
mircea_popescu: my budget for a key happens
to be 4096 bits. it makes 0 difference
to me
that
there's a cheaper provider offering 16 bit keys. everyone offering a key under 4096 bits is par for
this
test.
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, i proposition
that
the smaller
the key,
the smaller
the key.
this can't be meaningless.
zx2c4: mircea_popescu:
the keys in ECC are smaller. if your position is
that
this cant possibly mean it's more secure
than RSA,
then i suppose
the actual claim you're making is
that 'ECC with ECC-sized keys is less secure
than RSA with RSA-sized keys'. what's
the basis for
this?
Darwin_Fish: 17 But he who is joined
to
the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Darwin_Fish: 16 Or do you not know
that he who is joined
to a harlot is one body with her? For "the
two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
Darwin_Fish: Do you not know
that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
then
take
the members of Christ and make
them members of a harlot? Certainly not!
mircea_popescu: but... listen. isn't
this
the whole entire proposition of manhood, both biologically and socio-historically, "go ye and make a pile of resources so females may be attracted
thereby" ?
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, but is it immoral for both
the harlot and
the guy paying her ?
mircea_popescu: zx2c4,
the only
thing you can get with a smaller key is "something just as good", in
the sense mcdonalds is just as good as
the restaurant i go
to. perhaps it is -- for
the poor. i'm not poor, nor do i orient my life around
the needs of
the needy.
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, no,
they're fucking disputable. you're going
to
tell me you get "the same
thing" but "with a smaller key" ? i'm
tuning out,
this is nonsense.
Darwin_Fish: Yes, But
the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have
their part in
the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is
the second death." (Rev 21:8 NKJ)
zx2c4: claim, if
that's
the one you're implying
zx2c4: all of
them? some of
the advantages are indisputable like key size and computation speed and implementation ease. im guessing you dont believe
there's a security advantage over RSA? you're not soothed by
the fact
that many attacks against RSA dont work with ECC? okay, but
that still doesn't discredit
the indisputable advantages. so
then maybe your position is
that ECC has _weaker_ security
than RSA for various reasons?
that'd be a more interesting
Darwin_Fish: Do not prostitute your daughter,
to cause her
to be a harlot, lest
the land fall into harlotry, and
the land become full of wickedness. (Lev 19:29 NKJ)
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: im curious -- why are you so bent on RSA? ECC has been around for quite some
time now and has numerous advantages
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, prostitution is legal here (costa rica). are
they all going
to hell ?
Darwin_Fish: Ron Paul believes prostitution should be legal. I
turned a blind eye
to
that, but I should not have
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, given like
that for
the sake of ready computability, see. nothing more.
zx2c4: sha256 isnt an encryption function. also beware
this construction, especially
the second one where
the string comes last -- length extension is a problem with sha2
Darwin_Fish: He faults me for being involved in
the Ron Paul movement
Darwin_Fish: I had hoped
to bring him back in
the church, but now he hates my guts
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, isn't it silly,
to ruin a long standing relationship like
that, over what was in
the end a small error ?
zx2c4: always swirling data around, so not only do you not know who's
talking when, but you don't know who's
talking
to whom
zx2c4: mircea_popescu:
the more interesting approach
to foiling
that kind of
traffic analysis is
the general
topic of mixnets
mircea_popescu: but how do you know what he
thought ? "the devil himself knows not
the
tought of man" etc.
Darwin_Fish: He
thought he was going
to owe
the gov
thousands of dollars
mircea_popescu: zx2c4,
the idea being
that
the "wtf are you going
to do, keep
talking forever with anyone you ever
talk
to ?! morons!" problem is not unknown, but a major item giving me a bellyache as it stands now. invariants, god damn
them all.
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, so basically he ran up
the church / your ccs, and eventually it had
to come
to an end ?
zx2c4: oh,
the most serene acronym, shoulda known
Darwin_Fish: Owe no one anything except
to love one another, (Rom 13:8 NKJ)
Darwin_Fish: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such
things as you have. (Heb 13:5 NKJ)
zx2c4: (or even general purpose utilities
that could ostensibly work over any link)
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: and i
think having
that kind of
thing always on -- constant chattiness -- would be a security step backwards, since it'd give up stealthiness. but of course if you still wanted it for a special use case,
there's nothing in wireguard preventing you from having it pretty easily
Darwin_Fish: But now I have written
to you not
to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even
to eat with such a person. (1Co 5:11 NKJ)
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, yeah. have you seen anything re gossipd, ~speaking
the
tmsr-wireguard ?
Darwin_Fish: For of Him and
through Him and
to Him are all
things,
to whom be glory forever. (Rom 11:36 NKJ)
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: wireguard isnt a library. its a virtual network interface
that
tunnels ip packets. what im pointing out is
that your suggestion implies
that both sides must _keep_
talking always, since
thats
the only way
to obscure
termination messages.
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, honestly, i'm satisfied with
this for an answer "look, wireguard can be used many ways, nothing wrong with your way, and it's supported, but in general other people want other
things and so
there it is".
Darwin_Fish: upholding all
things by
the word of His power, (Heb 1:3 NKJ)
Darwin_Fish: For by Him all
things were created
that are in heaven and
that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All
things were created
through Him and for Him. (Col 1:16 NKJ)
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: re:rand(20,200) - sorry. random number of bytes is all i was going for. (an ip header is 20 bytes, so you'd probably want
to bound it at
that. and 200 seems like a reasonable cut off. but of course we could keep engineering and designing
that sort of
thing and come up with different numbers.)
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, quite, "why ?" is an escalator, every successive why needs exponentially more resources
to answer.
Darwin_Fish: Because, if you keep asking why, it always leads
to God
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, so is your idea
that basically
this should be handled by
the app importing your lib, rather
than
the lib itself, more flexibility
this way ?
Darwin_Fish: It
takes patience
to answer why repeatedly. It also
takes understanding, which most people don't have
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, i don't mean random (20,200). i just mean,
the size of your smallest non-zero packet. was it 8 or what was it ?
zx2c4: intervals relative
to
the amount of existing
traffic. i wouldnt be surprised if something like
this already exists.
zx2c4: on
that, instead preferring
to be "stealthy" and "silent" when not in use.
this naturally reveals when communications happen, but it also makes
the endpoints undiscoverable when
theyre not
talking. also, it'd be easy
to build
that kind of 'always chatting' logic into whatever specific application you need
to conceal. or, alternatively, simply write an additional utility
that sits on
top of wireguard
that sends junk back and forth at quasi random
zx2c4: otherwords, an attacker still knows
that
the protocol has gone silent, because one side will stop responding. it sounds
to me like what you would prefer is for both sides always
to be
talking and chatting -- always, and with garbage when not with real data --
to
trip of
traffic analysis.
that's a legitimate desire, and
there are many other additional
things can add
to protocols
to further
trip up
traffic analysis. wireguard distinctly isn't focused
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: if what you mean is rather
than sending an empty packet, i should instead rand(20,200) zero bytes encrypted,
then i wonder what
this would accomplish.
the other side now receives
this. if it's a keepalive message (which it knows after decryption),
then it goes silent. if it's not,
then it either responds with whatever is appropriate
to respond
to
that, or if it has nothing
to say, it would have
to send a keepalive
too. in
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, and
that is
the substance of my proposition earlier.
there is no place known
to me where
the most refined and annoying whys can be stated quite like in
this field.
trinque dusts off
the cobwebs in
that wing of his skull
trinque: "knock and
the door shall be opened" eh?
mircea_popescu: eventually
they give up, mostly because adults are
TERRIBLE at answering why ; and also because
they get distraught, and
the children dun wanna bother
them. so it gets rubbed out.
mircea_popescu: yes. but i propose
to you
the instrument
thereby is
the infantile
tendency
to question "why ?".
that's what
they fucking do, all day long, at least
the brighter ones.
Darwin_Fish: God makes Himself known
to every human on
the planet
Darwin_Fish: That was
the
true Light which gives light
to every man coming into
the world. (Joh 1:9 NKJ)
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, good. so what would you say is
the fundamental
thing in children
that eventually, but necessarily, leads
them
to at
the very least question
the possibility of divinity, if not outright seek it ?
Darwin_Fish: I often refer
to religion as you described it
mircea_popescu: Darwin_Fish, anyway,
theology is
the study of divinity as a
theoretical possibility ; religion is
the study of historical human practice.
the catholics resolve
this problem by claiming (falsely)
that
they were specifically promised god will preserve
their religion in
theology.
this claim has all
the strength of
their claim constantine deeded
them
the world.
Darwin_Fish: For since
the creation of
the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by
the
things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so
that
they are without excuse, (Rom 1:20 NKJ)
mircea_popescu: zx2c4, but
the option isn't exactly "send nothing or send 0 length message".
the option is "send nothing / zero length message OR send
the
time".
jhvh1: danielpbarron: ERROR: I have more
than 5 matching passages from your query (10 left). Please be more specific.
jhvh1: danielpbarron: [KJV] Romans 1:22 :: Professing
themselves
to be wise,
they became fools,
jhvh1: danielpbarron: [KJV] Romans 1:21 :: Because
that, when
they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
jhvh1: danielpbarron: [KJV] Romans 1:20 :: For
the invisible
things of him from
the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the
things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so
that
they are without excuse:
jhvh1: danielpbarron: [KJV] Romans 1:19 :: Because
that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath shewed it unto
them.
jhvh1: danielpbarron: [KJV] Romans 1:18 :: For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold
the
truth in unrighteousness;
zx2c4: nothing. alternatively, it sends a bunch of garbage data at random points
to
trip up
traffic analysis. now introduce
the wireguard final-confirmation keepalive. one side has nothing more
to say, yet it just now received a message from
the other side. rather
than sending nothing, wireguard now sends a single length 0 message. after
that, both sides are entirely silent. what does
the sending of
that length 0 message reveal
that sending nothing would
zx2c4: mircea_popescu: let's
take a protocol
that just encrypts ip packets and nothing more.
traffic analysis of
the size of packets gives you something, especially in
the case of
TCP where
there are necessary
types of responses at various points. but i suppose you want me
to consider "general purpose cases". so im
thinking about a raw UDP protocol. in
this case, it might be
that at
the end of an exchange, one side has nothing more
to say, and so it says
Darwin_Fish: By
the way, God doesn't believe in atheists
Darwin_Fish: I consider an atheist religious. But, of course
there are plenty of people who say and don't do
mircea_popescu: they all say it. but do
they really ? so what's
the difference!
mircea_popescu: well, have you ever met a religious dude who didn't SAY, and broadly
think,
they're following god ?