"Joseph Ashwood" <ashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:xyaYj.107$ex.58@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Martha Adams" <mhada@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:H5KXj.568$H91.462@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Doughboy" <anon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:4c5q2413g98vkqnq10b5ik2gb0li0rki94@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080516/twl-venezuela-colombia-rebels-interpol-4bdc673.html
>> This doesn't say anything, nor does the short thread that
>> follows it. Nobody seems to notice this. Is the sci.crypt
>> audience so much less than I hoped for?
>
>
> They probably didn't bother reading the linked news. The news says
> they verified the authenticity based on forensic analysis, how this
> becomes "two weeks" and "10 computers" I have no idea, but I will
> agree that any such attack mounted in such a way is likely to be a
> password attack, not cryptographic. Seems like rather a non-news for
> sci.crypt.
> Joe
Hi, Joe. Well, actually, I didn't read the "linked news"
either. I believe my reasons for not doing this are both
very strong.
Reason 1: It's a link. *Where does it link to*? Does it
by any chance link not to the innocuous site it says but
rather into a seething bed of Alien type malware? ?? I
am not interested to find out, since I've too much in
hand to do now.
Reason 2: Anyone into serious work knows the value and the
utility of abstracts. I've seen little indication anyone
here knows what I'm talking about when I mention 'abstracts.'
Thus the link thrown out without any abstract nor discussion
is like a rubber ball tossed by an idiot. I feel no
inclination to explore: I've too much other work to do.
Thus I don't have to follow and evaluate the links pointed
to, to know with some certainty, the posters have not the
basic strengths to differentiate between useful and vapid.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.crypt 2008 May 19]
|
