Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:42:44 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ack! SYSTEMTYPE=WIN32 Message-ID: <3F7C6394.6000805@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <3F7C5CE9.FDFD537A@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0309301845560.40930-100000@s1.stradamotorsports.com> <3F7ABB8A.3050408@potentialtech.com> <3F7C5CE9.FDFD537A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > Bill Moran wrote: > >>Jason C. Wells wrote: >> >>>What's wrong with ROT_13? Is there a sploit for it? >> >>I think it was born 'sploited. >> >> >>>I figure if the guys at MIT allow it, it must be just fine. That Sam >>>Hartman is a sharp guy. Why do you ask? >> >>Is this the same ROT_13 that Netscape mail used to use? ... that I >>(seriously) had a Spiderman decoder ring for when I was a kid? Am >>I getting it confused with something else? > > > It's a Caeser cipher with a periodicity of 13. > > The point is not to be cryptographically strong... it's to be > able to claim that anyone who decodes the content is in violation > of the DMCA. > > Therefore, you can, for example, post DeCSS in ROT-13, and if > the MPAA or DVDA comes after you for the sources being a DMCA > violation, you can point out that their decoding of the sources > is a DMCA violation. > > I've personally been lobbying for a cryptographic type definition > from IANA for a crypto system called "plaintext". Hmm ... why not do the same with "English"? "A method of encrypting complex ideas into a serious of sounds that can be represented by written symbols." I mean ... at that point, when somebody decrypts a message written in plaintext+english, you've got a _sure_ case. I mean, they circumvented TWO enctyption systems! -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F7C6394.6000805>