Journal dpt's Journal: Where has woogieoogieboogie gone? 47
I guess he couldn't handle being proven wrong. He appears to have slunk off with his tail between his legs. There were no replies to my last comments
Perhaps he *finally* figured out why he was wrong. I know, there's slim hope of *that*. Being born of welfare losers, I suppose the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree after all
Perhaps he's trying to find somewhere where people are dumb enough to believe that "HTML can be hidden", and don't notice all the obvious technical errors and logical contradictions in his statements.
Maybe he's found some place where people will respect a "Series 7 multiple choice exam in Stock Broking for Dummies" as being the absolute pinnacle of intellectual achievement. Lord knows he kept trying to pass it off as such so many times it got more than a little silly.
Or perhaps he was sacked from his bottom of the barrel "web development" job for an insignificant local real estate office, when they realized that you could get a H1B to do his job better, considering he doesn't understand TCP/IP, HTML, computing, programming, etc, etc as he has demonstrated repeatedly. He doesn't even post his nonsense to usenet any more! He could have gone back to the money and *cough* *cough* power of being a small-time stock broker, applying "fib analysis" to everything in sight without actually understanding basic maths first.
Ah, well, by driving such "people" off
You are a fucking idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your arguments are as well structured as a 5 year old demanding candy and throwing a temper-tantrum. I think he gave up on you because you are an idiot, not because you know how to argue or present a point.
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1, Flamebait)
> retarded you actually are.
Really? Where was I incorrect? Where? Looking at your posting history, the technical content of which could fit onto the back of an envelope, you're not one to be judging the intelligence level of anyone else. That much is certain.
> Then you claim to win arguments against Twirlip.
Indeed I did. Luckily, it's all preserved for everyone to see. Or were *you* vexed and confused by technical arguments
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Funny how that is how you see it. It must be challenging living life in delusions. Or it could be easy... which is it?
It's funny how you attempt to slander my intelligence and say that the technical aspect of what I post would fit on the back of an envelope when I doubt you could even begin to understand the designs of some of the systems I've create
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1, Troll)
> I've created.
All I have to go by is your posts. Need I bring up some of the more laughable statements?
> I've held senior positions, and now I am a consultant and love it.
All these arguments have already been refuted both by me and on twirlip's follow up journal entry. If you don't understand the problems with the DMCA, you simply don't understand information theory, computing science, or mathematics. I've tried to e
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Right. Keep trying.
All these arguments have already been refuted both by me and on twirlip's follow up journal entry. If you don't understand the problems with the DMCA, you simply don't understand information theory, computing science, or mathematics. I've tried to explain the problem in simple terms that even your average slow-witted law graduate could understand, but to no avail.
You do realize that if most peo
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1, Troll)
Educated, intelligent people don't. Since you are clearly uneducated and quite stupid, you've no hope of understanding the issues, I'm afraid.
Just get back to playing your first person shooters. That's appropriate your level of intellectual ability, I think.
> Not theirs. Are you claiming you have a law degree? Are you stating that you
> have any sort of actual law experience? Are you saying that you have a better
> un
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Right, and my college education is just a figment of my imagination. So is my work history. When you can't proclaim anything, nor write coherent arguments. Keep it up, you have something going for you.
Because you are a loser with no friends. Ever wonder why?
No, I have two friends. Very close friends, and a few other people I socialize with that are border-li
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Given your lack of technical knowledge, I can only assume you didn't do very well. Or it was in "economics", or something equally laughable?
> No, I have two friends. Very close friends, and a few other people I socialize
> with that are border-line friends, but not so distant to be acquaintances.
That's pathetic. I'm laughing at you and your sad life right now. Have you considered that the reason you have virtually no friends is
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
I can also tell you that it is feasible to hide HTML code. I'll detail out how to do it. Write a JavaScript SHA1 decrypting algorithm, that requests the keyset through an RPC mechanism, that decrypts the encrypted contents of a hidden div layer to write the rest of the document out. It's perfectly feasible to do, although a bit slow. I guess you already knew how t
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
No, it isn't, as the browser *must* eventually see it in plaintext in order to render it. Please get some sort of clue about HTTP and HTML. Thanks.
> I'll detail out how
> to do it. Write a JavaScript SHA1 decrypting algorithm, that requests the
> keyset
> through an RPC mechanism, that decrypts the encrypted contents of a hidden div
> layer to write the rest of the document out. It's perfectly feasible to do,
> although a bit slow
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Oh, and by the way, you *do* realize that SHA1 is a *hashing* algorithm? In your own words - you are a "fucking retard".
You would really want to use something like RC4. Perhaps in combination with SHA1.
Please stop, this is just too funny
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
What if the key is available only to a select user based off of credentials that are passed in? Uh-oh, didn't think that out too hard. You can also set it up to not cache, so that if you try to view source you will only see the encrypted div, and will have to write something to decrypt (which you can cancel out by doing stringent checks on the browser end) so that
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
"Oops"
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but read the RFC [faqs.org], or perhaps just this quote:
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
It's called "secure" as it is, and I quote, "computationally infeasible to find a message which corresponds to a given message digest, or to find two different messages which produce the same message digest".
*Not* because you can use it for encryption and dec
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
> credentials. So, I win.
Yes, but the original problem was hiding it from the intended reader, which you've not done. I agree that it is possible to hide it from third parties, but the original thread was all about hiding from the recepient, which is of course impossible.
> So I went from being a janitor to a webmaster all in 2 poorly constru
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
*Not* because you can use it for encryption and decryption. Fuck, you really are stupid, aren't you?
Might I point you to the Perl Digest::SHA1 modules that do that exact thing? You realize that one-time pad ciphers are also hashes...
Nevermind... this point is too complex for you.
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Now, you said it is impossible to hide HTML code. That is what you said to me. So, you lose.
I can't see a whole lot of difference between janitor and webmaster. And as for *your* grammar
Why don't you figure out how to spell recipient, then come talk to m
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
If you can't argue with the facts, you argue with the spelling.
> The fact of the matter is that you read the RFC, only understood a little bit
> of it, then start spouting off that you know a lot about cryptology.
No, I understand SHA1 very well.
> Go look up "hash chaining" and you will see what I'm talking about.
So, you are *not* using *just* SHA1? You said SHA1. End of story. Now you attempt to cover up by chang
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
How is it different than you commenting on grammer?
So, you are *not* using *just* SHA1? You said SHA1. End of story. Now you attempt to cover up by changing the method. Yes, this will work, but just because it builds on SHA1 doesn't mean it *is* SHA1.
You have just transcended idiocy into an arena I've never seen before.. Hash chaining is a way of managing multiple SHA1 hashes. I'm not even sure how to responded to this. Congratulations
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Thank you. Now go read up on cryptography, and stop backpedalling. You claimed to be able to use SHA1 (with no hash chaining) to perform decryption. You realized that was wrong when I pointed it out to you, and now you are attempting a transparent cover-up.
> This is fantastic though, you are spewing forth challenges for something you
> don't even know.
So, you admit you can't do it with *just* SHA1, but you need to perform hash chaining as well. Thank you.
> For someone w
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
This paragraph alone is fantastic. Even if you use SHA1 by itself, it's a hash chain. Of length 1. Dipshit. I never said I wouldn't use hash chaining, all I said is I would write a SHA1 decrypting function, which implies hash chaining as it's the on
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
I'm laughing at you right now.
At least you *finally* understand that SHA1, as described in the RFC that *you* referred to, can't by itself be used for encryption. Perhaps you should *read* things before linking to them?
The hash chain has to be combined with the plain text *somehow* you know - your failure to understand this process is quite laughable. Still, there are lots of good books for you to go and read on cryptography. I suggest you read some
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
Uhm, wow. Seriously... wow. You honestly believe this, don't you? You are absolutely delusional. You should seek therapy.
The hash chain has to be combined with the plain text *somehow* you know - your failure to understand this process is quite laughable. Still, there are lots of good books for you to go and read
Guys! That's enough! (Score:2)
Knock it off!!! This flamewar has taken too much time for each of you.
dpt, I'm sorry I feel the need to break into your journal completely uninvited, but well, I was reading Xerithane's, and I do.
Xerithane: I know you don't agree with dpt, but breaking into his JE with fighting words is not the way to begin a constructive conversation. Yes, I know that probably wasn't your intent. Yes, I know that he was perhaps flaming some of your friends in the JE to which you
Re:Guys! That's enough! (Score:2)
I'm not complaining. I'm laughing. You missed the point of this. I'm making fun of him.
No, I did not see either of you explicitly express this in a particular post, but the underlying tone of your posts indicate both of you have a little bit of a problem in that regard.
Incorrect. I posted an RFC backing up the use of SHA1 (As it was designed to be used as an encryption scheme) and proved he was wrong about the HTML thing.
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
It does obfuscate the HTML enough that 99% of the people out there will have no idea what to do with it. I don't know why anyone would bother to do this as for most applications of obfuscated HTML I can think of secure PDF files are a better solution.
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
I don't understand how you can use a hash algorithm to encrypt things actually. The obvious use of a hash algorithm results in a big number from which you can't derive the original input.
Could you please show me a bit of algorithm or some math so that I might be enlightened?
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
The concept is hash chaining. If Hash(A) = B, and Hash(B) = A, then you can decrypt/encrypt. That is an extremely dumbed down example. The easiest code to look to see how it is done is in the Crypt::HCE_SHA module available on CPAN. I've yet to see an implementation that did it that "elegant", even though it's written in perl. It beats my implementation, so we started using it
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
While that's true, it seems like it would be hard to find pairs like that. Perhaps I am wrong though. I do know that hash algorithms and ecryption algorithms are strongly related.
I see now, looking at the code, what's going on. It's the scheme described on page 351 of Applied Cryptography. It looks like CBC, but it isn't. It's actually subtly different. There's also a method that uses the hash function in a Feistel network, but that's apparently less secure.
Why would you yo do this instead of using
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
In all honesty, because I figured he would spout off about how you can't use SHA1 to encrypt/decrypt data
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
I see. *chuckle*
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
> You don't know the terminology and try to think that you are hot shit.
Sure I don't. I'm not the one who thinks SHA1 is an encryption algorithm.
I think you need to understand the difference between encrypting and generating a key stream. You use SHA1 to *generate* a keystream, then you use the key stream to perform the encryption. But that is not what you said you were doing.
> You can encrypt and decrypt using SHA1.
No
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
I believe you mean Crypt::HCE_SHA. Glad to see you didn't follow what I was saying. You took every queue like a contestant in a dog show.
You should just admit you were wrong, and be done with it. No, wait
I am right. SHA1 hash chai
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
> saying.
Oh, no, I'll never recover from that little mistake! A typo! So, the stuff about key streams just went straight over your head? I guess so. Please, do some reading, and then you'll be able to talk sensibly instead of emitting random nonsense in a vain attempt to bolster your flagging self-esteem.
> You took every queue like a contestant in a dog show.
Is that what passes for clever debate in Oregon? Looking like
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
I think you should review it yourself, I'm glad you picked up some pointers from Omnifarious, who agrees with me. You're on your own here, chief.
I did. Nothing interesting there, except some self-admitted unemployed loser spouting random drivel. I guess you two can relate, or something
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
> pointers from Omnifarious, who agrees with me. You're on your own here,
> chief.
Omnifarious
Anyway, if you read it, you would understand that you are wrong. Jumping up and down crying doesn't count, I'm afra
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
What's best is that you quote him. "Read page 351 of Applied Cryptography" which is exactly what he said.. Ironic, or stupid, you decide.
You just keep telling yourself that. That "three months break" and your begging for work on slashdot says otherwise. You can deny and
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:1)
> is exactly what he said.. Ironic, or stupid, you decide.
Because he's right, that's where it is!
Would you like someone to step you through it? It's pretty simple stuff.
> Crypt::HCE_SHA. You seem to be forgetting my challenge, in which I detail out we > have production software that makes use of the SHA hash chaining
> encryption/decryption system that is used in Crypt::HCE_SHA. So, delusional
> again... you
Re: I am changing the subject line (Score:1)
I'll also need to know the formats of the key and the ciphertext. The key looks like hex (one digit of range 0-255 per pair), but that's just an assumption.
The ciphertext *might* be base64, but it's too short, so I'm not really sure if you've had a cut-n-paste accident there, or what. Base64 is pretty popular in crypto, so I'm guessing that's what you meant, but like I said - too short!
I'm not sure why you chose different formats for each, but I can live w
Re: I am changing the subject line (Score:2)
I'm finishing this thread now, because you just aren't funny enough anymore. You are still claiming a lot of really delusional stuff, but the quality has declined over the last 3 days. Anyway, thanks for the thread. You've provided a lot more entertainment than HanzoSan or Graspee_Leemor ever could. Some points to help you in the future: You don't have strong arguments, and you present very vague examples and counter-ex
Re: I am changing the subject line (Score:1)
> Wow, you're great. You decline, then accept, then spout off a bunch of
> other shit.
Honestly, I decided to attempt to treat you like a grown up person. If you don't want to be treated as such, that's fine.
> And yes, I never took this thread seriously. I was just trolling you the entire
> time.
Er, what do you think I was doing?
> I don't give a fuck what you think about the DMCA, hiding HTML, the war,
> or what I had for breakfast.
Well, considering you were wrong about the DMCA and "hidi
Re: I am certainly better than the likes of you (Score:2)
The point you seem to be missing is currently the DMCA is the LAW. That means whatever other problems it has the way it is being used stands unt
Re:You are a fucking idiot. (Score:2)
Must have wandered over to
What's the betting that he picks a fight with me after reading this comment?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
The original problem was that someone claimed it was possible to conceal their HTML and Javascript (and whatever else) from the intender viewer, in the context of protecting the IP encapsulated in their HTML and Javascript. This is, of course, utterly impossible. If you want people to *see* it, then obviously they have to be able to render it.
Now, of course you can obfuscate by building the HTML on the client side using Javascript, or whatever, but in th
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry to say... (Score:1)
Sorry old chap, you come across as a royally egotistical arsehole.(1)
Irrespective of your perception as having won an argument, a well rounded personality knows when an argument is won or not worth continuing, whereas you continue to crow with "where has he gone" entries.
Oh and for future reference, it is quite possible to have a conversation containing reasoned argument, without a winner being decla