Plausible Deniability From Rockstar Cryptographers 358
J. Karl Rove writes "Nikita Borisov and Ian Goldberg
(of many, many other projects) have released
Off the Record Messaging
for
Gaim.
Encrypt an IM, prove (at the
time) that it came from you, and deny it later. The
authentication works only when the message is sent; anybody
can forge all the messages he wants afterwards (toolkit included).
Captured or archived messages prove nothing. And forward
secrecy means Big Brother can't read your messages even if
he wiretaps you AND grabs your computer later on. All the gooey goodness
of crypto, with none of the consequences!
They have a
protocol
spec, source
code, and Debian
and Fedora
binaries."
My foolproof encryption method (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FP (Score:3, Funny)
Or is your FP plausibly deniable? ;)
Just need one other thing (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
"Did I just say that I'd walk the dog?"
"Yes!"
"Nobody can prove that I just said that."
Rockstar Cryptographers? (Score:4, Funny)
Chris Mattern
Monica (Score:1, Funny)
I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Perl-ize this with that 25 line P2P (Score:5, Funny)
Ah... so that explains this IM conversation... (Score:3, Funny)
SBallmer: Yep, sure did. And we even explained the need for us to buy one of their licenses for unlimited computers. You know, for our in-house independent benchmarking company. You know, the whole "Get the Facts" campaign?
BillG: I see... but this SCO thing doesn't look like it's going to work. We need to go after them in even more indirect ways to avoid more antitrust sanctions. With Ashcroft gone, we may get a harder wrist-slap than last time.
SBallmer: We're already getting the puppet companies set up now. They have applied for tons of patents that could destroy Linux. We simply buy a perpetual license to all patents for a cool billion, and we're set.
BillG: How can companies apply for patents that already exist in Linux? What about prior art?
SBallmer: Don't worry, there's plenty of critical new or rewritten code since the patent applications that violates them. We've even guessed what Linux might add in the future, and patented that as well!
BillG: But if those lawsuits fail.. then what?
SBallmer: Well, we're working on getting the GPL ruled illegal. We're also going to deal a blow to all open source operating systems by our deals with bios manufacturers to only run operating systems who have paid their license to get the code signed. (Don't worry, they listen to our piles of money - if they obey us, they money keeps coming)
BillG: So, you want the computer to be like an xbox, then? We might want to start drafting legislation for mod chips to prevent people from using linux.. er.. pirated copies of windows longhorn without the subscription/expiration feature. After all, we don't want people to use windows without paying their subscriptions...
SBallmer: Already in the works. Prebought PCs will include a 3 year subscription to Longhorn Home/Crippled Edition. After this 3 years is up, the people buy a new computer rather than renewing their license (for an old computer, mind you) for another 3 years. The money from Intel and Dell is already pouring in. We can't allow mod chips because people would just use that to load the Corporate Edition.
holy grail of file sharing (Score:4, Funny)
Muaha (Score:1, Funny)
Police: You bet we do! We haven't forgotten that guy used to be black!
*sirens*
Re:how about dual-plaintext messages? (Score:4, Funny)
They see what you are 'hiding' and maybe laugh in your face
There's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it...
Killer! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:how about dual-plaintext messages? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they'll want my messages... (Score:2, Funny)
Me: Dude
Friend: Yo
Me: Whassup?
Friend: Nothing
Friend: You?
Me: Nothing
Friend: Dude
Me: Yo
Friend: How's work?
Me: Work?
Friend: You at home?
Me: Oh.
Me: No, work.
Me: Fine
Me: How's J? She still there?
Friend: Fine. No left with C.
Me: BRB
Friend: Kewl
Re:how about dual-plaintext messages? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Just need one other thing (Score:3, Funny)
If anyone asks, I'll cryptographically deny this new meme.
Re:how about dual-plaintext messages? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:No, that would be "implausible deniability" (Score:2, Funny)
No, that's the response when comfortable toilet paper is presented as evidence.
Re:how about dual-plaintext messages? (Score:2, Funny)