6 ms·

Thats what we get told, but there is always strategic reasons with so much stuff which few people get to hear about. On the news a while ago, the news was goin

Thats what we get told, but there is always strategic reasons with so much stuff which few people get to hear about. On the news a while ago, the news was going on about how the UK is banning dual use goods, so this tells us some Govt dept has audited potentially every business and its goods and compiled a list of devices which can be considered multi use. You see this alot with chemicals, Glycerine, used as a cosmetic can also be used for bombmaking. I only found this out when I purchased a litre and then some internet forum started going on about how it can be used for bomb making. Its why we dont get taught everything, not even in the news. Anyway oil prices have gone up which will push more people towards electric vehicles, and yet Russia has the largest oil reserves in the world, so no doubt they will benefit, because if another internet forum is to be believed, the Saudia's have all but exhausted their oil reserves which is one of the reasons for them IPO'ing their national oil producer. Kind of explains why I also wasnt allowed an export licence for an app but also highlights who was behind it!

Dracophoenix 5y ago
>Glycerine, used as a cosmetic can also be used for bombmaking. I only found this out when I purchased a litre and then some internet forum started going on about how it can be used for bomb making. It's the chief component in dynamite. >Kind of explains why I also wasnt allowed an export licence for an app but also highlights who was behind it! When do you need an export license for an app?
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  This was like 5-10years ago, I developed a bug reporting app and developed a form of encryption which was uncrackable. Now I'm not qualified in anything, never even went to Uni, but what should have taken 6weeks with the UK Dept BIS, took like more than that and then got denied so I shut the business down I'd set up for it. Dont have the source code anymore or anything and its not ever going to happen now. When I say it was uncrackable, it was based loosely on code books which were used in ww2, which is something I subsequently read about later on in the news.
  - eru 5y ago
    > [...] developed a form of encryption which was uncrackable. No, you didn't. > When I say it was uncrackable, it was based loosely on code books which were used in ww2, which is something I subsequently read about later on in the news. Could you please elaborate? Code books only work when both parties have a copy. Obviously for an app, you need to assume that the attackers have access to the app.
    - Terry_Roll 5y ago
      >Could you please elaborate? Lets just say it not only resource burned me because this wasnt just a simple string of data encrypted with an encryption algo, but it would have resource burned anyone else who decided to have a go at decrypting it because of some of the methods I employed. I set out to defeat any automated brute force cracking with Amazon cloud/Bluffdale level of resource at their disposal. This could also apply to quantum computing, because in a way there are probably enough computing devices connected to the net to emulate a quantum computer in near realtime. I turned their weakness into my advantage, but you would have had to have thought out of the box. I cant go into any more details, its as simple as that, so you can say what you like, but I'm not here to convince you, but I will say current internationally recognised encryption methods are just lazy imo. Edit. The difference with the resource burn though is I would get paid anyone else would be needing more tax dollars, so over time it could have been possible to see who was spooking on the reports because of their actions.
      - eru 5y ago
        Thanks for answering. Alas, frankly, you sound like a crank. It's exceptionally easy for a person to devise an encryption system they can't crack. It's exceptionally hard to devise an encryption system others can't crack. That's why generally cryptosystems are only seen as trustworthy when they have been out in the open and been attacked---without success---by many smart people with a track record of breaking cryptosystems. Eg do you know how differential cryptanalysis works? Or linear cryptanalysis? Or assuming you know about RSA, would you be able to figure out which classes of keys are deemed weak without looking it up? (Ie can you repeat this attack?) Do you know which existing cryptographic systems are vulnerable to quantum computers? And which are not? And why?

Dracophoenix 5y ago

>Glycerine, used as a cosmetic can also be used for bombmaking. I only found this out when I purchased a litre and then some internet forum started going on about how it can be used for bomb making. It's the chief component in dynamite. >Kind of explains why I also wasnt allowed an export licence for an app but also highlights who was behind it! When do you need an export license for an app?

Terry_Roll 5y ago
This was like 5-10years ago, I developed a bug reporting app and developed a form of encryption which was uncrackable. Now I'm not qualified in anything, never even went to Uni, but what should have taken 6weeks with the UK Dept BIS, took like more than that and then got denied so I shut the business down I'd set up for it. Dont have the source code anymore or anything and its not ever going to happen now. When I say it was uncrackable, it was based loosely on code books which were used in ww2, which is something I subsequently read about later on in the news.
- eru 5y ago
  > [...] developed a form of encryption which was uncrackable. No, you didn't. > When I say it was uncrackable, it was based loosely on code books which were used in ww2, which is something I subsequently read about later on in the news. Could you please elaborate? Code books only work when both parties have a copy. Obviously for an app, you need to assume that the attackers have access to the app.
  - Terry_Roll 5y ago
    >Could you please elaborate? Lets just say it not only resource burned me because this wasnt just a simple string of data encrypted with an encryption algo, but it would have resource burned anyone else who decided to have a go at decrypting it because of some of the methods I employed. I set out to defeat any automated brute force cracking with Amazon cloud/Bluffdale level of resource at their disposal. This could also apply to quantum computing, because in a way there are probably enough computing devices connected to the net to emulate a quantum computer in near realtime. I turned their weakness into my advantage, but you would have had to have thought out of the box. I cant go into any more details, its as simple as that, so you can say what you like, but I'm not here to convince you, but I will say current internationally recognised encryption methods are just lazy imo. Edit. The difference with the resource burn though is I would get paid anyone else would be needing more tax dollars, so over time it could have been possible to see who was spooking on the reports because of their actions.
    - eru 5y ago
      Thanks for answering. Alas, frankly, you sound like a crank. It's exceptionally easy for a person to devise an encryption system they can't crack. It's exceptionally hard to devise an encryption system others can't crack. That's why generally cryptosystems are only seen as trustworthy when they have been out in the open and been attacked---without success---by many smart people with a track record of breaking cryptosystems. Eg do you know how differential cryptanalysis works? Or linear cryptanalysis? Or assuming you know about RSA, would you be able to figure out which classes of keys are deemed weak without looking it up? (Ie can you repeat this attack?) Do you know which existing cryptographic systems are vulnerable to quantum computers? And which are not? And why?