On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:27:34 -0500, Martha Adams wrote
(in article <q7gYj.3661$Uf1.2051@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
> "Joseph Ashwood" <ashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:xyaYj.107$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-interp
>>>> ol-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]
>
>
I searched the BBC site and the article I saw on the subject does not
state
the time or method of cracking the code, only that interpol states that
the
files were not tampered with. Not much of interest.
Hud
|
