Trump: No computer is safe, use paper, pen and courier for the best security!

[Takuya Saitoh]

That's it folks, back to pigeons carrying paper messages! No matter, Linux, Windoze or Mac it's all unsafe trash!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIMMMaWZwU

Worst security comes with hobbyware in the hands of an amateur, like Mint in the hands of an old dumbass.... Archers at least know what they are doing ;-)

[GreyCloud]

Trump got it from Putin. That's what Russia has been doing lately for
security. The old fashioned way.
Unhackable.

[ronb]

Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
important government business. Probably not a bad idea.

--
Zero tolerance for iCultists and WinDrones

[Takuya Saitoh]

The military class security means using typewriters or comps up to plain DOS, no Linux, no Internet... Just look what controls the nuclear warhead silos!

[GreyCloud]

Precisely. We used to do that as well, until someone figured an easier
way to do it. Of course, the current computing environments aren't
secure anyway. Trump said he is going to release some information on
Tuesday or Wednesday on this topic, so I'm staying tuned in to see what
it is.

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:

>
> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>

You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
of the highest order.

The reason why computers are insecure is because people are too
willing to rely on commercial third-party software. This is true even for
GNU/Linux where the mainstream distros are essentially third-party
applications.

If people would just learn to operate their own custom systems, based
of course on GNU/Linux, then there would be NO PROBLEMS with security.

My system is invulnerable, and if I could communicate with people
just like me then all our communications would be impenetrable.

But most people, even techies, would not fully understand what needed
to be done.

GNU/Linux provides the best foundation, but it must be coupled with
very knowledgeable users to truly implement unbreakable security.

[Steve Carroll]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:16:10 AM UTC-7, fr31...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>
> >
> > Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
> > important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
> >
>
> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
> of the highest order.
>
> The reason why computers are insecure is because people are too
> willing to rely on commercial third-party software.

That and/or servers that aren't secure... and some of those people are at the highest levels in government.

[Peter Köhlmann]

fr31...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>
>
> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
> of the highest order.
>
> The reason why computers are insecure is because people are too
> willing to rely on commercial third-party software. This is true even for
> GNU/Linux where the mainstream distros are essentially third-party
> applications.
>
> If people would just learn to operate their own custom systems, based
> of course on GNU/Linux, then there would be NO PROBLEMS with security.
>
> My system is invulnerable, and if I could communicate with people
> just like me then all our communications would be impenetrable.

And you are too damn stupid to recognize how ridiculous your claims are

[RonB]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 09:16:07 -0800, fr314159 wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>
>
>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>
>>
> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
> of the highest order.

So what do you suggest -- comprising state secrets in the name of not
being "technically aggressive?" Sounds like putting the cart before the
horse.

> The reason why computers are insecure is because people are too willing
> to rely on commercial third-party software. This is true even for
> GNU/Linux where the mainstream distros are essentially third-party
> applications.
>
> If people would just learn to operate their own custom systems, based of
> course on GNU/Linux, then there would be NO PROBLEMS with security.
>
> My system is invulnerable, and if I could communicate with people just
> like me then all our communications would be impenetrable.
>
> But most people, even techies, would not fully understand what needed to
> be done.
>
> GNU/Linux provides the best foundation, but it must be coupled with very
> knowledgeable users to truly implement unbreakable security.

If it's on the Internet it CAN be hacked.

--
Testing KDE Neon (Plasma 5.8.5)

[RonB]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:13:16 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 09:16:07 -0800, fr314159 wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>>
>>>
>> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
>> of the highest order.
>
> So what do you suggest -- comprising state secrets in the name of not
> being "technically aggressive?" Sounds like putting the cart before the
> horse.

Err ... "technically REgressive..."

[DFS]

On 1/2/2017 12:16 PM, fr31...@gmail.com wrote:


> My system is invulnerable


Bullshit. You know very little about what's running on your system. You
haven't read a lick of the code you install willy-nilly via the Gentoo
repos.

And you run as root, greatly increasing its vulnerability.

And you have an easy to guess password: "IHeartStallman"

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 09:21:55 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote:

>
> That and/or servers that aren't secure...
>

Aren't servers third-party software?

But the point that I was implying is that for true security
one does not utilize a server. One will go peer to peer.

A peer-to-peer connection(s) can easily circumvent all that
server bullshit and enable truly impenetrable communication.

As I stated, GNU/Linux will provide the very best foundation.
The knowledgeable user(s) does the rest.

[RonB]

Peer to peer services still connect via public wire/fiber/satellite/
whatever.

--
Testing Linux Mint 18 Xfce

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:35:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

> You know very little about what's running on your system.
>

That makes no difference.

Peer-to-peer software links can very easily be concocted on
a GNU/Linux system that can enable impenetrable communication.

As I have stated, GNU/Linux provides the very best foundation.
The knowledgeable user does the rest.

Idiot.

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:38:19 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>
> And you are too damn stupid to recognize how ridiculous your claims are
>

And you are un-imaginative, un-inventive, and un-creative.

You can only utilize the junk-slop that has been established by others.

So get out. We don't need your useless judgments.

The future belongs to truly inventive people -- like me.

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 23:34:55 +0000, RonB wrote:

>
> Peer to peer services still connect via public wire/fiber/satellite/
> whatever.
>

A connection is NOT a message.

Fucking idiot.

[RonB]

What a bitter old biddy you are. Are you sure you don't use a Mac?

[DFS]

On 1/2/2017 6:59 PM, F. Russell wrote:


> The future belongs to truly inventive people -- like me.

Show us your inventions/innovations, Feeb. Computer hardware, software,
machines, sex dolls... whatever.

And bring the details: pics, videos, code, schematics... not just your
usual vapid claims with zero evidence.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/02/17 10:16, fr31...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>
>
> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
> of the highest order.

Not at all. Putin ordered this policy in 2015 and it is still working
well. Computers, as Trump put it, are and never will be secure to use.

The US did this since the 1940s to thru to 1990s using couriers that
were armed.

[GreyCloud]

If it is worth it, a government can tap that line you are using to
monitor and intercept that traffic.

[GreyCloud]

No shit sherlock. If you got your computer hooked up to that cable or
whatever... it can tapped.

[GreyCloud]

Some of the really good hacking software that other governments use run
over a million$. And they do work well.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/02/17 16:36, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:35:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> You know very little about what's running on your system.
>>
>
> That makes no difference.
>
> Peer-to-peer software links can very easily be concocted on
> a GNU/Linux system that can enable impenetrable communication.

That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.

>
> As I have stated, GNU/Linux provides the very best foundation.
> The knowledgeable user does the rest.
>
> Idiot.
>

LOL!!!

[Takuya Saitoh]

The problem is ... well there are no knowledgeable users working for the Govt, LOL

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:58:57 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> If you got your computer hooked up to that cable or
> whatever... it can tapped.
>

How? Explain the steps you would take to try to "tap" my machine.

Then I will laugh in your face as you fruitlessly smash into
a solid, impenetrable wall.

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:58:01 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> If it is worth it, a government can tap that line you are using to
> monitor and intercept that traffic.
>

Big deal. All that they will see is, to them. random garbage.

Even traffic analysis will fail miserably with numerous "decoy"
messages.

Look up "Navajo Code Talkers" for an example of just how easy
it can be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
> information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.
>

They can collect all they want. To them it will be all random
garbage.

No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.

But there are many other, and more convenient, methods to use that
are well beyond the reach of the NSA.

[Melzzzzz]

There is ssh ;)


--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Peter Köhlmann]

Idiot

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 08:01, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:58:57 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> If you got your computer hooked up to that cable or
>> whatever... it can tapped.
>>
>
> How? Explain the steps you would take to try to "tap" my machine.

At NSA. That's how. Or at any server that serves your line.

>
> Then I will laugh in your face as you fruitlessly smash into
> a solid, impenetrable wall.
>

Idiot.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 08:12, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2017-01-03, F. Russell<f...@random.info> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:58:57 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you got your computer hooked up to that cable or
>>> whatever... it can tapped.
>>>
>>
>> How? Explain the steps you would take to try to "tap" my machine.
>>
>> Then I will laugh in your face as you fruitlessly smash into
>> a solid, impenetrable wall.
>>
> There is ssh ;)
>
>

Just that the NSA can gather that too.
Why? Damned if I know.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 08:05, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:58:01 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> If it is worth it, a government can tap that line you are using to
>> monitor and intercept that traffic.
>>
>
> Big deal. All that they will see is, to them. random garbage.

Is that what you send is just garbage? Guffaw!!!

>
> Even traffic analysis will fail miserably with numerous "decoy"
> messages.

So you think.

>
> Look up "Navajo Code Talkers" for an example of just how easy
> it can be:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
>

I'm very familiar with that techique... but it doesn't apply to computer
traffic... why? It's all binary.

[GreyCloud]

You know, I don't know how he injected code talkers into the computer
realm. Must be a beginner.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 08:09, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
>> information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.
>>
>
> They can collect all they want. To them it will be all random
> garbage.

If you are inferring to encryption... they are masters at cracking.
If you are just sending out dumb and useless info, they will ignore you
for what you are.

>
> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.
>

Bullshit.

> But there are many other, and more convenient, methods to use that
> are well beyond the reach of the NSA.
>

So you think. Ever worked for them?

[GreyCloud]

There are. And most were paid to get an education as well. They didn't
have to go and get a grant to get their degrees because the gov knows
that they are trully intelligent and innovative... unlike the parrots
that the universitities put out.

[Takuya Saitoh]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 4:09:42 PM UTC+1, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
> >
> > That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
> > information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.
> >
>
> They can collect all they want. To them it will be all random
> garbage.
>
> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.

Quantum comp can, DNA comps too... Anything is possible if yo get enough people motivated/working on it seriously

[Takuya Saitoh]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 4:47:34 PM UTC+1, Takuya Saitoh wrote:
> That's it folks, back to pigeons carrying paper messages! No matter, Linux, Windoze or Mac it's all unsafe trash!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIMMMaWZwU
>
> Worst security comes with hobbyware in the hands of an amateur, like Mint in the hands of an old dumbass.... Archers at least know what they are doing ;-)

Nobody is safe from McAfee when using (networked) computers, that pal got his fingers inside any HTTPS traffic and more....

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-01-03, Takuya Saitoh <taka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 4:09:42 PM UTC+1, F. Russell wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
>> > information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.
>> >
>>
>> They can collect all they want. To them it will be all random
>> garbage.
>>
>> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.
>
> Quantum comp can, DNA comps too... Anything is possible if yo get
> enough people motivated/working on it seriously

Is there functionalt quantum computer at all?

>
>> But there are many other, and more convenient, methods to use that
>> are well beyond the reach of the NSA.
>

[F. Russell]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:51:32 -0800, Takuya Saitoh wrote:

>>
>> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.
>
> Quantum comp can, DNA comps too...
>

You fail to understand. A one-time pad is UNBREAKABLE by ANYTHING.

It is proven impossible to break a one-time pad.

The only drawback is that a one-time pad requires an exceptionally
good source of random numbers as well as a secure method of pad distribution.

But careful planning can insure success.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-01-03, Takuya Saitoh <taka...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hm?

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 17:14, F. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:51:32 -0800, Takuya Saitoh wrote:
>
>>>
>>> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.
>>
>> Quantum comp can, DNA comps too...
>>
>
> You fail to understand. A one-time pad is UNBREAKABLE by ANYTHING.

I'd love to see proof of this.

[GreyCloud]

On 01/03/17 17:14, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2017-01-03, Takuya Saitoh<taka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 4:09:42 PM UTC+1, F. Russell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's what you think. I'm sure the NSA has the time to collect your
>>>> information tho. Most likely you aren't worth the effort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They can collect all they want. To them it will be all random
>>> garbage.
>>>
>>> No one, not even the NSA and KGB combined, can break a one-time pad.
>>
>> Quantum comp can, DNA comps too... Anything is possible if yo get
>> enough people motivated/working on it seriously
>
> Is there functionalt quantum computer at all?
>

Yes, the one near Roy, Utah where NSA has one.

[F. Russell]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:16:23 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> I'd love to see proof of this.
>

Even high school students are aware of this fact.

But here is the proof:

https://www.cs.umd.edu/~jkatz/crypto/f02/lectures/lecture3.pdf

Of course one has to be versed in probability theory to understand
it, and that excludes you.

Fucking idiot.

[GreyCloud]

You are the fucking idiot here.

Do you honestly think that the NSA doesn't know more about the topic
than some "never-worked-an-honest-day-in-his-life" professor that thinks
he knows about encryption techniques? NSA has been doing this since the
early 1950s.

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-5, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> Do you honestly think that the NSA doesn't know more about the topic
> than some "never-worked-an-honest-day-in-his-life" professor that thinks
> he knows about encryption techniques? NSA has been doing this since the
> early 1950s.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a stupid fool!

You know fucking shit about cryptography. A 10-year-old geek
could whip your stupid ass.

One-time pads CANNOT be broken by anyone or anything. Period.
Case closed.

Actually, the NSA, or its predecessor agencies, were involved
in attempting to crack Soviet OTP's since 1942. After 50 years
of trying they could not succeed. There was only a partial success
due to Soviet errors in generating random keypads.

Look up Project Verona:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

The power of the NSA, KGB, etc. can be completely nullified with
one-time pad cryptography, as well as other, non-perfect, methods.
Even Snowden will tell us this.

Get your head out of your ass.

But oh wait. That's its natural environment.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Peter Köhlmann]

fr31...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-5, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you honestly think that the NSA doesn't know more about the topic
>> than some "never-worked-an-honest-day-in-his-life" professor that thinks
>> he knows about encryption techniques? NSA has been doing this since the
>> early 1950s.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a stupid fool!
>
> You know fucking shit about cryptography. A 10-year-old geek
> could whip your stupid ass.
>
> One-time pads CANNOT be broken by anyone or anything. Period.
> Case closed.

This is wrong

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:49:23 PM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> >
> > One-time pads CANNOT be broken by anyone or anything. Period.
> > Case closed.
>
> This is wrong
>

Fuck you! Stupid, degenerate, scum-sucking, piece of idiotic
trash!

Do you think that you know more than I? Idiot fuck ass!

When I say it can't be broken, then it can't be broken, and
I've got the whole fucking world to back me up.

So get the fuck out of here!

[GreyCloud]

fr31...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-5, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you honestly think that the NSA doesn't know more about the topic
>> than some "never-worked-an-honest-day-in-his-life" professor that thinks
>> he knows about encryption techniques? NSA has been doing this since the
>> early 1950s.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a stupid fool!

You are dumber than a lead brick.

>
> You know fucking shit about cryptography. A 10-year-old geek
> could whip your stupid ass.

You're also a dumb idiot. You know nothing about what they do.

>
> One-time pads CANNOT be broken by anyone or anything. Period.
> Case closed.
>
> Actually, the NSA, or its predecessor agencies, were involved
> in attempting to crack Soviet OTP's since 1942. After 50 years
> of trying they could not succeed. There was only a partial success
> due to Soviet errors in generating random keypads.
>
> Look up Project Verona:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
>
> The power of the NSA, KGB, etc. can be completely nullified with
> one-time pad cryptography, as well as other, non-perfect, methods.
> Even Snowden will tell us this.
>
> Get your head out of your ass.
>
> But oh wait. That's its natural environment.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.

[RonB]

Even IF (theoretically) you could produce an un-hackable email, you still
have to send it to someone. And that someone would probably end up falling
victim to a simple phishing email hack. So much for security.

--
Testing Linux Mint 18 Xfce

[F. Russell]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:31:27 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>
> My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
>

You don't have enough brain cells either.

Idiot.

[F. Russell]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 21:32:47 +0000, RonB wrote:

>
> Even IF (theoretically) you could produce an un-hackable email, you still
> have to send it to someone. And that someone would probably end up falling
> victim to a simple phishing email hack. So much for security.
>

Judas Priest! What a dense fucking idiot!

Stop trying to think that you understand digital networking in even
a minimal sense.

You are a monumental loser.

Do the world a favor and bury yourself.

[Takuya Saitoh]

If classic hacking fails, there is always the social engineering ;-) Every dude is vulnerable to the opposite sex, the biggest vulnerability lies in our wetware, the god was a sloppy programmer.....

[Anonymous]

Typical Usenet conversation. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Takuya Saitoh <taka...@gmail.com> in <9e00c465-0f93-460c...@googlegroups.com> writes:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:44:57 PM UTC+1, ronb wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:43:55 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>>
>> > On 01/01/17 08:47, Takuya Saitoh wrote:
>> >> That's it folks, back to pigeons carrying paper messages! No matter,
>> >> Linux, Windoze or Mac it's all unsafe trash!
>> >>
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIMMMaWZwU
>> >>
>> >> Worst security comes with hobbyware in the hands of an amateur, like
>> >> Mint in the hands of an old dumbass.... Archers at least know what
>> >> they are doing ;-)
>> >

>> > Trump got it from Putin. That's what Russia has been doing lately for
>> > security. The old fashioned way.
>> > Unhackable.
>>
>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>
>> --
>> Zero tolerance for iCultists and WinDrones
>
> The military class security means using typewriters or comps up to plain DOS, no Linux, no Internet... Just look what controls the nuclear warhead silos!

It would be more interesting to look what controls something much more important: money in the banks.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Idiot

[Peter Köhlmann]

fr31...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently, in Russia, they now use typewriters and couriers for all
>> important government business. Probably not a bad idea.
>>
>

> You must be joking. It's a terrible idea. It's a technical regression
> of the highest order.
>
> The reason why computers are insecure is because people are too
> willing to rely on commercial third-party software. This is true even for
> GNU/Linux where the mainstream distros are essentially third-party
> applications.

Idiot

> If people would just learn to operate their own custom systems, based
> of course on GNU/Linux, then there would be NO PROBLEMS with security.

Problem is: Few people would be willing to use in large amount of time to
set up things they have no business to do.
And then there are those who are incredibly stupid, like you. They could
not, even if there life depended on it

And no, no one who has not learned a lot about security would be able to set
up a system more secure than those which are readily available.

You are simply bullshitting. And did I tell you that you are stupid? Well,
you are

[F. Russell]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 01:18:28 -0800, Takuya Saitoh wrote:

>
> If classic hacking fails, there is always the social engineering ;-) Every dude
> is vulnerable to the opposite sex,
>

If the NSA started using prostitutes and call girls for social
engineering purposes, they would be torn apart by the whacko
feminists, and their democrat liberal supporters, for degrading
the sanctity of women.

The KGB, however, doesn't have such concerns.

[GreyCloud]

Do the world a favor and go fuck yourself.


--

[GreyCloud]

Guffaw!!! You're nothing more than a big mouthed bass, you asshole.

ROFLMAO!!!

--

[DFS]

On 1/3/2017 7:14 PM, F. Russell wrote:


> But careful planning can insure success.

I told you before, moron: the correct word is 'ensure'.

[Takuya Saitoh]

Mostly Windoze, no Linux in serious computing...

[Peter Köhlmann]

Where "serious computing" is defined as "frantically moving the mouse,
starting Word 10 times a day and otherwise playing games"

[Melzzzzz]

He knows what banks use...