Re: My private key

["Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor () hammerofgod com>]

You're killin me over here ;)

And while funny, you actually do raise a good point - I should not use the term "totally secure" like that.  Rather, I 
should say that the encryption mechanisms used are based on industry standards and accepted mechanisms for strong 
encryption:  RSA2048 asymmetric, AES256 symmetric, and SHA256.  

I should have a full work up by the end of the weekend.

t

> -----Original Message-----
> From: musnt live [mailto:musntlive () gmail com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:09 AM
> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
> Cc: Benji; Larry Seltzer; full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] My private key
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Thor (Hammer of God)
> <Thor () hammerofgod com> wrote:
>
> > It's totally portable, totally secure,
>
> Hello Full Disclosure, I'd like to warn you about "totally secure" and rubber
> hose cryptography. While Thor's bold statement of totally secure is so to say
> potential and possible the interrogators at Camp X-Ray beg to differ. Yes list
> "creative questioning" can yield Thor or anyone else's key and can be
> mathematically proving using a patended Craig S. Wright algorithm:
>
> Let P(n) be the statement that says that key+password+...+n = (n/2)(n+1)
>
> Firstly P(n) has to be checked for n=N, which is impossible
>
> It cannot be shown that the truth of P(k-1) implies the truth of P(k).
> Because, P(k-1) is the statement key+password+...+(k-1) = ((k-1)/2)k, which is
> assumed to be true for k greater than or equal to 2 however N cannot be
> calculated.
>
> Next add k to both sides of statement P(k-1) to get
> key+password+...+(k-1)+k = ((k-1)/2)k+k. Taking out a factor of k on
> the right hand side of the equation leaves key+password+...+k = (((k-
> 1)/2)+1)k = k((k/2) + (1/2)) =(k/2)(k+1), which implies that P(k) is true.
> Condition 2 has been satisfied.
>
> Both conditions of the statement for the principle of mathematical induction
> have been satisfied but N is never established and the proof is inconclusive, in
> other words P(n) is true for all positive integers n and nothing more given
> that: B(eer)||T(orture)||M(oney) trump all
> so:
>
> B+M=P(*) || T=P(*)
>
> Please contact Mr. Wright LLC, PhD, DDS, CISSP, GSE, GSE, GSE for future risk
> metrics. Did forget I mention GSE?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/