[ILUG] Net banks with linux support

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 11:30:31AM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 
>>>How is the AES assumption valid? And how do you then extrapolate a 2^128
>>>keyspace? SSL and TLS (not TSL) support variable key sizes, as does the
>>>AES algorithim.
>>
>>'Assuming' the AES algorithm as the method for encryption, the very
>>_worst_ keyspace is 2^128. As you've already pointed out AES can have
>>variable key sizes, with 128 bits, being the smallest.
> 
> 
> And how is that assumption valid? There are other encryption algorithims
> supported, with keysizes going as low as 40 bits. You seem to
> acknowledge this lately, I'm just curious. 
> 
> 
>>>online banking are not your sessions being intercepted and deciphered,
>>>but rather are to do with the security surrounding the endpoints.
>>
>>Of course that is one of the obvious choices for obtaining ATM/Credit
>>card details. Indeed, it would make much more sense, to attempt to
>>compromise a bank's servers and circuitously obtain, Colm MacCartaigh's
>>Credit Card number, at the server, then it would to attempt to brute
>>force, captured SSL encrypted packets, even if we assume a pathetic 40
>>bit key is in use, but really it's not a _likely_ delta for compromising
>>online transactions.
> 
> 
> This paragraph, like the rest of your response is mostly a mash of
> contradictory, ill-judged, totally unjustified, transparent nonsense.
> Luckily it serves as a good illustration of that, and allows to me to
> avoid wasting time dealing with much of the nonsense item by item. 

Colm.

If you are going to have a debate with another person (me), might I
suggest (for future reference) that, you at least attempt to show some
manners ? I deleted the semi-personal barbs when replying to your last
mail, in the hopes that the penny would drop.

Clearly it doesn't, or you've chosen not to let it drop, so I'll have to
insist, quite politely, that when you are addressing me in public in the
future, if you wouldn't mind showing a modicum of civility and manners.
 I'll also have to insist that you refrain from making personal remarks,
since, really, all it serves to do, is to highlight the fact that, it
/seems/ it's easier for you to attack me personally, then to engage in
any semi-reasoned debate. I've met quite a few people who... debate like
this on the Internet. It's worth noting, having scanned briefly over
your email, that you've spent more time, trying to undermine me
personally, then you have, in actually constructing a valid argument, to
sustain your position. Clearly, that speaks volumes about how, sound
that argument is, how much you've investigated it, and exactly how much
logic has actually gone into constructing it.

To be quite honest, I've noticed from you, over the last few months,
that you seem quite prone to being disingenuous when talking to me, on
the ILUG. I can only assume it's because, I've left the part-time course
in Computer Science in Trinity where we were both study, to go to
Computer Engineering elsewhere. Really though, how that is any business
of yours, or why you should be so, rude and disingenuous /constantly/,
when we talk on the ILUG since then, is not something that is
immediately obvious to me. In any case I can understand you feeling
perhaps personally snubbed (somehow), but, I won't tolerate anybody,
being rude to me and I certainly won't grace your condecention, with any
further reply.

Bottom line, I'm not engaging in any further discourse with you on the
premise you /don't/ have some sort of ulterior agenda to satisfy, by
being rude, disingenuous and condescending. In the real world, nobody I
know professionally nor personally, has the ... bad judgment or the
ignorance if you perfare, to act this way, with me at any rate. I'll
refrain from feeding the pretense we're sparring over ATM machines or
SSL here, even if you won't. At least one of us, in this, discussion, is
an adult, so could you please, grow up a little bit and well, get over it !


Best Regards,
Bryan O'Donoghue