info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Imad Faiad's version 6.5.8 ckt PGP?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Johann Beretta
Oct 2, 2021, 4:29:10 AM10/2/21
to
On 8/15/21 1:15 PM, ha...@invalid.com wrote:
> What is the general concensus these days as to the security of Imad
> Faiad's version 6.5.8 ckt PGP?
>
> Is there any worthwhile concern it might have been "broken" after
> all these years by the owers-that-be?
>
Broken? Hard to say. But it's ancient software. It's a really bad idea
to trust any security to software written twenty fucking years ago.
That's two decades of missed bug-fixes, algorithm updates, and general
improvements.
If there are any problems in his implementation of PGP, then everybody
has had twenty years to learn about them. RNGs (Random Number
Generators) are constantly having to be fixed because someone figures
out they're not "random enough". Faster computers of today can find
patterns in much larger data sets. They can look at a LOT of RNG data.
Nobody has managed to put a truly random generator in a PC. All we keep
doing is building better Pseudo RNGs. Anyone who says otherwise (even
with silicon based RNGs) doesn't know what they're talking about.
Youtube is awash in physics videos that explain why we can't make a
perfect RNG.
PGP 6.5.8ckt - Build08 - Read me file - 05/02/2002
I mean... c'mon..
> What is the general concensus these days as to the security of Imad
> Faiad's version 6.5.8 ckt PGP?
>
> Is there any worthwhile concern it might have been "broken" after
> all these years by the owers-that-be?
>
Broken? Hard to say. But it's ancient software. It's a really bad idea
to trust any security to software written twenty fucking years ago.
That's two decades of missed bug-fixes, algorithm updates, and general
improvements.
If there are any problems in his implementation of PGP, then everybody
has had twenty years to learn about them. RNGs (Random Number
Generators) are constantly having to be fixed because someone figures
out they're not "random enough". Faster computers of today can find
patterns in much larger data sets. They can look at a LOT of RNG data.
Nobody has managed to put a truly random generator in a PC. All we keep
doing is building better Pseudo RNGs. Anyone who says otherwise (even
with silicon based RNGs) doesn't know what they're talking about.
Youtube is awash in physics videos that explain why we can't make a
perfect RNG.
PGP 6.5.8ckt - Build08 - Read me file - 05/02/2002
I mean... c'mon..
0 new messages