3 ms·
In an age of asymmetric public-key cryptography there would be very little to gain from number stations and a lot to lose.
by octagonal 12y ago
In an age of asymmetric public-key cryptography there would be very little to gain from number stations and a lot to lose.
- dfc 12y agoHow does an operator reliably, repeatedly and securely use "asymmetric public-key cryptography" in an environment where the possession of a laptop is cause for suspicion?
- jrockway 12y agoThe places that ban laptops love one-time pads...
- bananas 12y agoOTPs and number stations can't be cracked mathematically and the channel is secure as long as the receiving end doesn't let the pad get into bad hands (this is achieved by compartmental communications and code words on top). I would have thought that recent OpenSSL, SecureTransport and GnuTLS news would disprove your point. Not only that, we don't know what bad actors with unlimited resources can do with our communications if tapped. So number stations and OTP are still viable and always will be. With respect to numbers stations the transmission is centralised as well which means it's hard to break the channel infrastructure without crossing a border physically.