The underwater cable chop...

On Feb 2, 10:59 am, Straydog wrote:
> Just finished the submarine book, including chapters on the cable taps
> done on Russkie military cables by CIA.
>
> Hmmmm....they did have one cable-sub crash.
>
> Could it be another cable tap mission where "the knife slipped"?
>
> Nah.....we're the good guys....... |-)

I bet you good guys had an explosive charge as a part of the
wiretapping device. In the case of the war, a signal would be sent and
would cut off the Russkies' communication line.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Feb 1, 11:37 pm, Beladi Nasrallah wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:59 am, Straydog wrote:
>
> > Just finished the submarine book, including chapters on the cable taps
> > done on Russkie military cables by CIA.
>
> > Hmmmm....they did have one cable-sub crash.
>
> > Could it be another cable tap mission where "the knife slipped"?
>
> > Nah.....we're the good guys....... |-)
>
> I bet you good guys had an explosive charge as a part of the
> wiretapping device. In the case of the war, a signal would be sent and
> would cut off the Russkies'  communication line.

As I understand it, communications on the cable were not encoded
because it was thought to be phyically secure, so in the case of
war it would have been a vital intelligence source and certainly
would have been allowed to continue to function.

Cheers,
Russell
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Feb 2, 4:17 pm, Russell wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:37 pm, Beladi Nasrallah wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 10:59 am, Straydog wrote:
>
> > > Just finished the submarine book, including chapters on the cable taps
> > > done on Russkie military cables by CIA.
>
> > > Hmmmm....they did have one cable-sub crash.
>
> > > Could it be another cable tap mission where "the knife slipped"?
>
> > > Nah.....we're the good guys....... |-)
>
> > I bet you good guys had an explosive charge as a part of the
> > wiretapping device. In the case of the war, a signal would be sent and
> > would cut off the Russkies'  communication line.
>
> As I understand it, communications on the cable were not encoded
> because it was thought to be phyically secure, so in the case of
> war it would have been a vital intelligence source and certainly
> would have been allowed to continue to function.

The data from the wiretapping device were retrieved once in a while
(every half a tear or a year). They could not be retrieved in real
time. The war operations would last on a timescale of less than half a
year. Thus, it makes sense to cut off Russki's cable once your Army
attacks... this would terminate communication between the parts of the
Ruski Army, and also create confusion among them.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> > As I understand it, communications on the cable were not encoded
> > because it was thought to be phyically secure, so in the case of
> > war it would have been a vital intelligence source and certainly
> > would have been allowed to continue to function.
>
> The book said some of the communications were encrypted.

Encryption can always be cracked.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> > Encryption can always be cracked.
>
> Another book says it can't. It said only the US and Russkie high
> encryption had such large keys and they were always changing, so they
> could never be cracked. I'm not an expert on this, just saying what
> another book said.

Heh. You shouldn't believe everything you read. (Or in your own
words "Tsk tsk").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker

What particular books did you read which made these claims? (Also
what years were these books published).
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Feb 2, 2:03 am, Beladi Nasrallah wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:17 pm, Russell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:37 pm, Beladi Nasrallah wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 10:59 am, Straydog wrote:
>
> > > > Just finished the submarine book, including chapters on the cable taps
> > > > done on Russkie military cables by CIA.
>
> > > > Hmmmm....they did have one cable-sub crash.
>
> > > > Could it be another cable tap mission where "the knife slipped"?
>
> > > > Nah.....we're the good guys....... |-)
>
> > > I bet you good guys had an explosive charge as a part of the
> > > wiretapping device. In the case of the war, a signal would be sent and
> > > would cut off the Russkies'  communication line.
>
> > As I understand it, communications on the cable were not encoded
> > because it was thought to be phyically secure, so in the case of
> > war it would have been a vital intelligence source and certainly
> > would have been allowed to continue to function.
>
> The data from the wiretapping device were retrieved once in a while
> (every half a tear or a year). They could not be retrieved in real
> time.

OK, I thought I'd heard it was in real time.

> The war operations would last on a timescale of less than half a
> year. Thus, it makes sense to cut off Russki's cable once your Army
> attacks... this would terminate communication between the parts of the
> Ruski Army, and also create confusion among them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cheers,
Russell
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, wrote:

>>> As I understand it, communications on the cable were not encoded
>>> because it was thought to be phyically secure, so in the case of
>>> war it would have been a vital intelligence source and certainly
>>> would have been allowed to continue to function.
>>
>> The book said some of the communications were encrypted.
>
> Encryption can always be cracked.
>

Another book says it can't. It said only the US and Russkie high
encryption had such large keys and they were always changing, so they
could never be cracked. I'm not an expert on this, just saying what
another book said.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, wrote:

>>> Encryption can always be cracked.
>>
>> Another book says it can't. It said only the US and Russkie high
>> encryption had such large keys and they were always changing, so they
>> could never be cracked. I'm not an expert on this, just saying what
>> another book said.
>
> Heh. You shouldn't believe everything you read. (Or in your own
> words "Tsk tsk").
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker
>
> What particular books did you read which made these claims? (Also
> what years were these books published).
>

Yeah, that's brute force decryption. There are some requirements such as
you have to have a large enough sample of encrypted text, and you have to
have enough time (on a computer for pattern recognition) to for it to
solve the key. And, once you have the key, you have to depend on the
encryptors still using the key and keeping it constant.

You can have unbreakable codes by pre-arrangement, single use. For
example, use of some innocent word in any text. Nobody can figure that out
unless they had a microphone in the room when two people agreed on what
that, or a few words meant. Also like single-use passwords. You would have
to get your hands on the list and that could be pretty hard.

I think where I read about the brute force decryption was in Charles
Bamford's book "The Puzzle Palace." He said that the only two countries
that change encryption keys so fast (or so often might be the more proper
term) that the encryption can't be cracked were the US and Russia.

So, you're welcome to correct me or enlighten me further. I may have a
look again in a couple of books I have that I have not read yet.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> Yeah, that's brute force decryption. There are some requirements such as
> you have to have a large enough sample of encrypted text, and you have to
> have enough time (on a computer for pattern recognition) to for it to
> solve the key. And, once you have the key, you have to depend on the
> encryptors still using the key and keeping it constant.

There's easier ways to extract that information, even without
decrypting it completely. One example is torture in places which
don't respect human rights.

> You can have unbreakable codes by pre-arrangement, single use. For
> example, use of some innocent word in any text. Nobody can figure that out
> unless they had a microphone in the room when two people agreed on what
> that, or a few words meant. Also like single-use passwords. You would have
> to get your hands on the list and that could be pretty hard.

This is like the one time pad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

In practice, they're only effective in certain limited scenarios.
Otherwise they're not particularly useful.

> I think where I read about the brute force decryption was in Charles
> Bamford's book "The Puzzle Palace." He said that the only two countries
> that change encryption keys so fast (or so often might be the more proper
> term) that the encryption can't be cracked were the US and Russia.

Historically, the problem was knowing what set of keys to use. The
way around it for governments was to send around huge key books via
their own traveling diplomats. A lot of physical security was to
prevent one of the key books from being compromised.

All it takes in one unknowingly compromised key book for security to
nosedive. For example, during world war 2 the allies recovered some
nazi key books from a sinking sub. In practice, there's no way of
knowing whether a key book has been compromised until the information
is made public in some form.

> So, you're welcome to correct me or enlighten me further. I may have a
> look again in a couple of books I have that I have not read yet.

The state of the art in computer cryptography from a decade ago, is
the book "applied cryptography" by Bruce Schneier. Another book from
that same time period is "handbook of applied cryptography", which is
online at

http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> OK on above, but there is nothing there that disproves what I said about
> "one use, small messages" where the meaning is pre-arranged, and the
> recent book said the same thing. Again, the only fear would be the guys
> with the "sixth sense" that can guess what is going on.

This is a one time pad, mentioned in another post. It's only 100%
secure when used once. After it has been used, it's not secure
anymore.

Some weirdo mathematician even tried to prove that the one time pad is
the only one which is 100% secure, until it is used one.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> > There's easier ways to extract that information, even without
> > decrypting it completely. One example is torture in places which
> > don't respect human rights.
>
> That would defeat the purpose of "decrypting" since the whole idea is to
> let the enemy think you have NOT decrypted because you don't want the
> enemy to start sending misinformation/disinformation.

In practice, cracking via dictionary attacks is actually quite
effective for passwords. People usually choose a word they can
remember easily, either out of laziness and/or ignorance.

They can also torture someone to reveal the key/password.

In England, there's some law on the books which makes it a criminal
act if someone does not reveal a password/key.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071001-uk-can-now-demand-data-d...yption-
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

> You can have unbreakable codes by pre-arrangement, single use. For
> example, use of some innocent word in any text. Nobody can figure that out
> unless they had a microphone in the room when two people agreed on what
> that, or a few words meant. Also like single-use passwords. You would have
> to get your hands on the list and that could be pretty hard.

Body language can also be used for secret communications.

In general, secret lingo is commonly done for communications in
organized crime, violent street gangs, etc ... and also in a prison
type environment.

The ways these are undermined is having an informant "mole" in a
particular crowd, where they're able to determine the lingo. Even
without an informant, wiretaps on phones, computers, etc ... and
planted bugs can determine to some extent what they're talking about.

** satire mode on **
For example, if the feds (or clandestine corporate "enforcers") wants
to get the goods on Straydog for being a "terrorist" against
corporations, they can just parse through all of Straydog's usenet
posts and other possible writings. The feds may also set up wiretaps
on Straydog's telephones, computer, ham radio transmissions, etc ...
and bug his home and whatever hangouts he frequents, as well as his
wife's place of work. The feds may even try to send in an informant
"mole" to befriend Straydog. All of this accumulated information can
be used to write up a translation dictionary for Straydog's code
words, as well as compiling incriminating information for future
prosecution.
** satire mode off **
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop... 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, wrote:

>> Yeah, that's brute force decryption. There are some requirements such as
>> you have to have a large enough sample of encrypted text, and you have to
>> have enough time (on a computer for pattern recognition) to for it to
>> solve the key. And, once you have the key, you have to depend on the
>> encryptors still using the key and keeping it constant.
>
> There's easier ways to extract that information, even without
> decrypting it completely. One example is torture in places which
> don't respect human rights.

That would defeat the purpose of "decrypting" since the whole idea is to
let the enemy think you have NOT decrypted because you don't want the
enemy to start sending misinformation/disinformation.

>> You can have unbreakable codes by pre-arrangement, single use. For
>> example, use of some innocent word in any text. Nobody can figure that out
>> unless they had a microphone in the room when two people agreed on what
>> that, or a few words meant. Also like single-use passwords. You would have
>> to get your hands on the list and that could be pretty hard.
>
> This is like the one time pad.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
>
> In practice, they're only effective in certain limited scenarios.
> Otherwise they're not particularly useful.
>
>> I think where I read about the brute force decryption was in Charles
>> Bamford's book "The Puzzle Palace." He said that the only two countries
>> that change encryption keys so fast (or so often might be the more proper
>> term) that the encryption can't be cracked were the US and Russia.
>
> Historically, the problem was knowing what set of keys to use. The
> way around it for governments was to send around huge key books via
> their own traveling diplomats. A lot of physical security was to
> prevent one of the key books from being compromised.
>
> All it takes in one unknowingly compromised key book for security to
> nosedive. For example, during world war 2 the allies recovered some
> nazi key books from a sinking sub. In practice, there's no way of
> knowing whether a key book has been compromised until the information
> is made public in some form.
>
>> So, you're welcome to correct me or enlighten me further. I may have a
>> look again in a couple of books I have that I have not read yet.
>
> The state of the art in computer cryptography from a decade ago, is
> the book "applied cryptography" by Bruce Schneier. Another book from
> that same time period is "handbook of applied cryptography", which is
> online at
>
> http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/
>

This is beyond my realm of interests. I'm much more worried about stuff
like identity theft, about which I can do very little compared to the
hackers that are always breaking into data bases I have zero control over.
 >> Stay informed about: The underwater cable chop...