4 ms·

> Sneakers was the best technically How so? In terms of technical accuracy, Wargames is vastly more accurate (everything down to the old paperclip trick to get

> Sneakers was the best technically How so? In terms of technical accuracy, Wargames is vastly more accurate (everything down to the old paperclip trick to get free phone calls, a very old school fone phreaking trick) than Sneakers, or Hackers for that matter.

metalliqaz 5y ago
Probably because Sneakers features more social engineering. That would be my guess. Wargames features realistic war dialers and such, but it also features WOPR, a 1980's computer that can speak and learn and reason like a human.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > but it also features WOPR, a 1980's computer that can speak and learn and reason like a human. While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins as their central element, but Wargames has vastly more technically-accurate methodology sprinkled throughout the film.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. That is more reasonable to me than Skynet. Due mainly to things like the Clipper Chip[0] and other efforts made by the government[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      > That is more reasonable to me than Skynet. Have you heard of RYAN [1]? Or LAWs [2]? Skynet is here in full force, while strong crypto remains unbreakable. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/wargames-for-real-how-one-1983-exercise-nearly-triggered-wwiii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/warga... [2] https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    > While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. > Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins Sneakers came out in 1992 and in 1999, EFF and distributed.net brute-forced a DES key in under 24 hours. If that's what a bunch of randoms could do in 1999 with commodity hardware, the NSA almost certainly had ASIC, FPGA, or supercomputer based tools to provide nearly the same functionality much, much earlier. If you pay attention to the talk around The Box - the concept is that the mathematician found a "shortcut" through western encryption algorithms. That's a very accurate representation of plenty of crypto attacks. For example, a bunch of WiFi attacks are nearly as magical as The Box. The film eventually reveals that it's the NSA that wants the box...to spy on other government agencies. Also rooted in truth; the NSA created DES with intentional weaknesses, mandated its use for the government and pushed its use in private sector.
    - mandevil 5y ago
      I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the DES story: the NSA made changes to the S-box without explanation in the 1970's, and everyone was suspicious at the time, but then 15 years later two researchers "discovered" differential cryptanalysis, and realized that the changes the NSA made actually protected it against this form of attack. So instead of weakening it, the changes the NSA made protected it against a then unknown (in UNCLASS) attacks. The NSA did push to reduce the key size from 64 to 48, which is why the eventual standard was to the always bizarre 56 bits.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins as their central element Sneakers automatically decrypting something is a conceit of the movie to show what the device can do (find primes to break encryption), even if the way they go about showing it is silly. If you had more time and an understanding audience, you could replace that with a scene where they try out the encryption breaking on files, etc, and the movie works the same for the most part if you explain why it's important. It's all understood technology, explained with the limitations of the time. Wargames rests on an AI which we still can't make and aren't sure how to make or if it's necessarily possible to make. The movie falls apart entirely if it's not a learning computer. The conversing audibly is a conceit to make it more approachable as a film like in Sneakers, but that's not the largely problematic part.
  - bostik 5y ago
    > Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything Not "anything". Merely the standard encryption used [and sold] by their own government. The allusion to NSA being an arm of nation-state industrial espionage apparatus is quite muted, but it's there.
fenomas 5y ago
Speaking of phreaking, I always loved how Sneakers wasn't afraid to be understated. The David Strathairn character mentions that he got in trouble for helping some people make free phone calls, and has perfect pitch and the nickname "Whistler", and... no more is said. People who get it, get it.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  ...As someone from Vancouver (90 minutes from the Whistler ski resort), I didn't make the connection until JUST NOW.
- endgame 5y ago
  Probably based off the real-life phreak Joybubbles, who was also blind, had perfect pitch, was nicknamed "Whistler", and got into trouble for helping people make cheap phone calls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles
CapitalistCartr 5y ago
The computer parts of Wargames were good, but the military parts were hilariously silly. When that movie came out, I was working in the missile business at the time. It was a good popcorn movie, but that's it. The hype of being a serious movie was advertising. The only bit of the military part they did right was the interior of the Launch Control Facility, the room where the two officers turn their keys.
- toomanyrichies 5y ago
  I just watched this on Youtube [1], and was surprised to see the actors in the scene were John Spencer (from The West Wing) and a (very young) Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs). According to Wikipedia, this was Madsen's 2nd role ever. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-T_uhQ0iE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-T_uhQ0iE4
  - CapitalistCartr 5y ago
    The whole bit with the "farmhouse" cover for it is nonsense. The actual facilities were clearly marked, fenced, and heavily guarded, with the usual "Use of deadly force authorized" signs. Every local knew where they were, as did the Soviets. Handling your issue .38 that way would get you a reprimand. And, of course, the military never ran exercises with the real equipment, or without telling the crew.

metalliqaz 5y ago

Probably because Sneakers features more social engineering. That would be my guess. Wargames features realistic war dialers and such, but it also features WOPR, a 1980's computer that can speak and learn and reason like a human.

Ansil849 5y ago
> but it also features WOPR, a 1980's computer that can speak and learn and reason like a human. While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins as their central element, but Wargames has vastly more technically-accurate methodology sprinkled throughout the film.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. That is more reasonable to me than Skynet. Due mainly to things like the Clipper Chip[0] and other efforts made by the government[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > That is more reasonable to me than Skynet. Have you heard of RYAN [1]? Or LAWs [2]? Skynet is here in full force, while strong crypto remains unbreakable. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/wargames-for-real-how-one-1983-exercise-nearly-triggered-wwiii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/warga... [2] https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  > While Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything, at the touch of a power probe. > Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins Sneakers came out in 1992 and in 1999, EFF and distributed.net brute-forced a DES key in under 24 hours. If that's what a bunch of randoms could do in 1999 with commodity hardware, the NSA almost certainly had ASIC, FPGA, or supercomputer based tools to provide nearly the same functionality much, much earlier. If you pay attention to the talk around The Box - the concept is that the mathematician found a "shortcut" through western encryption algorithms. That's a very accurate representation of plenty of crypto attacks. For example, a bunch of WiFi attacks are nearly as magical as The Box. The film eventually reveals that it's the NSA that wants the box...to spy on other government agencies. Also rooted in truth; the NSA created DES with intentional weaknesses, mandated its use for the government and pushed its use in private sector.
  - mandevil 5y ago
    I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the DES story: the NSA made changes to the S-box without explanation in the 1970's, and everyone was suspicious at the time, but then 15 years later two researchers "discovered" differential cryptanalysis, and realized that the changes the NSA made actually protected it against this form of attack. So instead of weakening it, the changes the NSA made protected it against a then unknown (in UNCLASS) attacks. The NSA did push to reduce the key size from 64 to 48, which is why the eventual standard was to the always bizarre 56 bits.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Both films have nonsensical MacGuffins as their central element Sneakers automatically decrypting something is a conceit of the movie to show what the device can do (find primes to break encryption), even if the way they go about showing it is silly. If you had more time and an understanding audience, you could replace that with a scene where they try out the encryption breaking on files, etc, and the movie works the same for the most part if you explain why it's important. It's all understood technology, explained with the limitations of the time. Wargames rests on an AI which we still can't make and aren't sure how to make or if it's necessarily possible to make. The movie falls apart entirely if it's not a learning computer. The conversing audibly is a conceit to make it more approachable as a film like in Sneakers, but that's not the largely problematic part.
- bostik 5y ago
  > Sneakers features a box which can decrypt anything Not "anything". Merely the standard encryption used [and sold] by their own government. The allusion to NSA being an arm of nation-state industrial espionage apparatus is quite muted, but it's there.

fenomas 5y ago

Speaking of phreaking, I always loved how Sneakers wasn't afraid to be understated. The David Strathairn character mentions that he got in trouble for helping some people make free phone calls, and has perfect pitch and the nickname "Whistler", and... no more is said. People who get it, get it.

deanCommie 5y ago
...As someone from Vancouver (90 minutes from the Whistler ski resort), I didn't make the connection until JUST NOW.
endgame 5y ago
Probably based off the real-life phreak Joybubbles, who was also blind, had perfect pitch, was nicknamed "Whistler", and got into trouble for helping people make cheap phone calls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles

CapitalistCartr 5y ago

The computer parts of Wargames were good, but the military parts were hilariously silly. When that movie came out, I was working in the missile business at the time. It was a good popcorn movie, but that's it. The hype of being a serious movie was advertising. The only bit of the military part they did right was the interior of the Launch Control Facility, the room where the two officers turn their keys.

toomanyrichies 5y ago
I just watched this on Youtube [1], and was surprised to see the actors in the scene were John Spencer (from The West Wing) and a (very young) Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs). According to Wikipedia, this was Madsen's 2nd role ever. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-T_uhQ0iE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-T_uhQ0iE4
- CapitalistCartr 5y ago
  The whole bit with the "farmhouse" cover for it is nonsense. The actual facilities were clearly marked, fenced, and heavily guarded, with the usual "Use of deadly force authorized" signs. Every local knew where they were, as did the Soviets. Handling your issue .38 that way would get you a reprimand. And, of course, the military never ran exercises with the real equipment, or without telling the crew.