No. I think you've misunderstood one-time padding (or brute-forcing).

Brute forcing is when you try (almost) every possible key, which is significantly shorter than the message, to see what the message will turn out with said key hoping to find the right one. If the message turns out to make sense (contain english words or ascii alphabet for example) it is likely to be correct.

With OTP the key and the message are of equal length. Going through every key is the same as going through every possible message. So you will not only hit alphabet, but you'll get shakespeare and snowden leaks alike.

That makes all forms of bruteforcing futile. No extra codes necessary.

One bit example:
my message is M (0 or 1) and my pad is P (0 or 1).
M xor P = C cipher text, and equally C xor P is M.

Now, given C, say 1. You can trivially bruteforce it into 0 as if P had been 1 or into 1 as if P had been 0, but that solves nothing. Because both possibilites are equally likely. Repeat that on every bit and all you will ever know about the message is its length.

The length leakage is also easy to counter to some extent by appropriate amount of random padding (adding some extra gunk to the end).

Sir, you have not looked into this one bit and are spewing hot air without any substance.

The ANDed limitation of uid being root makes zero sense. Why limit root in particular?

Not to mention that __WALL already has __WCLONE flag in it, what would possibly be the point of that? Aside from the obvious assignment as comparison, which of course seemingly could be a typo, the rest of it is something no sane kernel developer would have any reason what so ever to put in there.

That is why it is a backdoor insertion without any reasonable doubt. Not because of the mere = in place of ==, which I still typo regularly after 25 years of C. Thankfully these days compiler warnings and various static analyzers catch that nonsense.

For me it's the awesome bar in Firefox that I've grown to depend on desktop, too. I just type a letter or two of the most frequent sites I visit and there it is. Android chromes are miserable at that and for me that's a game changer.

And while it's tempting to write ==, it should be just a =

I'm won't admit how many years of unix/linux it took for me to notice that, that few shells bother to complain about it.

And I, as an owner, too, will have to disagree because absolutely love it. There's future right there, no doubt on my mind.

So true, I'm so sick and tired of such gish gallops often used by the AGW denialists.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence""

I didn't rtfa, hell, I even skipped the summary. This is just about the most breaking and surprising news story I've seen all year.

Don't be silly. There are symmetric ciphers that have been proven to be "unbreakable" in a sense that to open them would take time comparable to brute forcing.

Factoring large prime composites and RSA is another matter, but to entangle 4000 qubits right now? I seriously doubt it.

And I think you're also wrong on the availability aspect. It's naive to think that anything but public encryption methods actually work.

Yep, that would be Tsar Bomba detonated over Novaja Zemlja in the sixties. Windows were broken as far as in Finnish and Norwegian north. Amazing and fascinating stuff.

I'm curious what this stuff would do to my sailing boat frictionwise and would it work as an antifouling aswell.

So true, but I wouldn't venture too far down the "Midas wasn't" alley.

The thing I remember about alta vista is that when I searched for "UDP proxy", for example, all I got was a hundred pr0n links without a single link to anything actually relating to UDP or proxying. I think it was just about then when I switched to google.

No, quite the reverse. This shift answers all those questions in one fell swoop.

[quote]and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser[/quote]

What's wrong with that? The headline does say [i]theologian[/i].

For Androids the cheapest Huaweis sell here for about 110e and you get a ton of options around 150e.

There are a lot of Nokians that sell between 50e and 100e, but I doubt that Nokia could sell anything they can jam linux into below 100e. Those cheap ass phones are all series40 with virtually zero sw costs and a line of phones they've been making for ten years now so no wonder they can make them cheap. Nokia always had good hardware manufacturing and logistics, it's what they did and didn't do with software that sunk them into the maelstrom they're in now.