tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password for
his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout
after ten password entry attempts.

Paul

"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password for
his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...sb-flash-drive




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/01/2021 10:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:05:12 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...rives/ironkey-
s1000-encrypted-usb-flash-drive

Personally I have my doubts as to whether anything you but - especially
when they don't release the code - is truly safe from GCHQ.

Even if they *do* release the code, that is no guarantee its not
hackable. (there are often "side channel" attacks that will work against
the hardware that don't rely on flaws in the code).

Its always a case of "know your enemy". Keeping out casual snoopers,
skilled security researchers, enterprise level funded cryptanalysts, and
nation state level funded operatives are typically very different
propositions.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:05:12 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...rives/ironkey-
s1000-encrypted-usb-flash-drive

Personally I have my doubts as to whether anything you but - especially
when they don't release the code - is truly safe from GCHQ.

I dont given that even the FBI made a spectacular fool
of itself trying to force Apple to decrypt an iphone.

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:05:12 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...rives/ironkey-
s1000-encrypted-usb-flash-drive

Personally I have my doubts as to whether anything you but - especially
when they don't release the code - is truly safe from GCHQ.

I dont given that even the FBI made a spectacular fool
of itself trying to force Apple to decrypt an iphone.

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone data.

Apples policy is now to allow US agencies access to phone data:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:48:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 20/01/2021 18:09, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:05:12 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...rives/ironkey-
s1000-encrypted-usb-flash-drive

Personally I have my doubts as to whether anything you but - especially
when they don't release the code - is truly safe from GCHQ.

I dont given that even the FBI made a spectacular fool
of itself trying to force Apple to decrypt an iphone.

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone data.

Apples policy is now to allow US agencies access to phone data:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

That is conflating a number of issues though - the original FBI request
was for backdoor access to the phones themselves, and also to unlock a
particular phone. Something that Apple (rightly IMHO) resisted since
backdoors work for bad guys as well as good.

The above article seems to be talking about access to data held in the
Apple cloud - which is s slightly different matter. Although even there
its seems that the FBI want access because its easy rather than strictly
necessary.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:05:12 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2021 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
That is silly. Not the same bloke who cannot remember his password
for his bitcoins then?

no, a different guy

There are two different stories on the go, at the same time.

One involves a hard drive.

I think the other one involves an Ironkey with lockout

I haven't a clue what an Ironkey with lockout is

https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingd...rives/ironkey-
s1000-encrypted-usb-flash-drive

Personally I have my doubts as to whether anything you but - especially
when they don't release the code - is truly safe from GCHQ.

I dont given that even the FBI made a spectacular fool
of itself trying to force Apple to decrypt an iphone.

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone data.

That exploit was only there on old phones and has been fixed.

Apples policy is now to allow US agencies access to phone data:

They dont get to do that when you encrypt it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:25:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case, or certainly
the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially claimed they
couldn't hack the phone.

To be honest I was surprised the FBI couldn't as I thought the code was
4 alphanumerics, which is only 500,000 combinations. BICBW

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case,

Yes they did, but that was an obsolete iphone,
current iphones didnt have that exploit that
the third party used, it had been fixed.

or certainly the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially
claimed they couldn't hack the phone.

Actually because apple wouldnt do what the FBI
was trying to get the court to force apple to do.

To be honest I was surprised the FBI couldn't as I thought the code was 4
alphanumerics, which is only 500,000 combinations. BICBW

The phone wipes itself after enough failures.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:35:43 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case, or certainly
the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially claimed they
couldn't hack the phone.

My memory was the FBI mysteriously withdrew it's
legal action to force Apple to decrypt the device
after *alleging* that an Israeli company had done it.

Nothing mysterious about it.

Apple simply "refused to comment"

Thats wrong too, they said that an exploit was
used and that that had been fixed long ago and
that the only reason it could be used was because
that obsolete phone had not been updated.

so we were all left wondering if it had really been done,

Only those who hadn't kept up.

or whether the FBI decided to back down
rather than create a court precedent that
effectively permitted uncrackable encryption.

No court gets to rule on that, even in the USA.

To be honest I was surprised the FBI couldn't as I thought the code was
4 alphanumerics, which is only 500,000 combinations. BICBW

The problem is the memory gets wiped after so many incorrect tries.

Yep, apple isnt as stupid as Fredxx

rOn Fri, 22 Jan 2021 06:02:21 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 05:55:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On 21/01/2021 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:35:43 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case, or certainly
the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially claimed they
couldn't hack the phone.

My memory was the FBI mysteriously withdrew it's
legal action to force Apple to decrypt the device
after *alleging* that an Israeli company had done it.

Nothing mysterious about it.

Apple simply "refused to comment"

Thats wrong too, they said that an exploit was
used and that that had been fixed long ago and
that the only reason it could be used was because
that obsolete phone had not been updated.

Any exploit was to stop the erasing of data through too many tries.
Brute force was still used to decrypt the data:

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...no-iphone.html

On 21/01/2021 13:23, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:35:43 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case, or certainly
the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially claimed they
couldn't hack the phone.

My memory was the FBI mysteriously withdrew it's legal action to force
Apple to decrypt the device after *alleging* that an Israeli company had
done it. Apple simply "refused to comment" so we were all left wondering
if it had really been done, or whether the FBI decided to back down
rather than create a court precedent that effectively permitted
uncrackable encryption.

To be honest I was surprised the FBI couldn't as I thought the code was
4 alphanumerics, which is only 500,000 combinations. BICBW

The problem is the memory gets wiped after so many incorrect tries.


Something I didn't realise before my post.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2021 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:35:43 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 21/01/2021 11:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:09:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/01/2021 17:48, Rod Speed wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And Apple were made a fool of when a third party decrypted the phone
data.

Or claimed to.

I thought the FBI admitted in court that this was the case, or
certainly
the case against Apple fell, because the FBI initially claimed they
couldn't hack the phone.

My memory was the FBI mysteriously withdrew it's
legal action to force Apple to decrypt the device
after *alleging* that an Israeli company had done it.

Nothing mysterious about it.

Apple simply "refused to comment"

Thats wrong too, they said that an exploit was
used and that that had been fixed long ago and
that the only reason it could be used was because
that obsolete phone had not been updated.

Any exploit was to stop the erasing of data through too many tries.

That isnt how the third party got into
that obsolete not updated phone.

Brute force was still used to decrypt the data:

Bull****.

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...no-iphone.html

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:32:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/