Re: DES Crack Hype

# > > > For instance, New Media Laboratories provides no source code for their
# > > > software, nor any type of documentation to track what it 'should' be
# > > > doing vs. what it 'is' doing.
# > >
# > > I had no difficulty obtaining source from them for benchmarking/porting
# > > reasons.  I do freely admit that there is a lack of documentation.

  Let's clear a few things up right off the bat here.  This whole thing
  was done strictly out of complete boredom with the participation
  of a small group of people, mainly online friends.  Needless to say
  it has grown at a seemingly exponential rate, putting us somewhere
  in the ballpark of having a "real shot" at this.

  Source code was initially released on a very early version of the
  RC5-client, after a half dozen or so rogue clients started up, we
  decided to quickly strop distributing source code until the whole
  client->server protocol could be devised "the right way"..  Source
  code for "current" client will be released as well, hopefully very
  soon now.

  Well documentation for what it is doing?  It's uh, doing some math
  or something; that's retarded.

  Documentation for running?  Well, I suppose anyone unfamiliar with normal
  ``man(1)'' style syntaxing would find it cryptic at best, but it should
  be fairly straight forward.  Now that there actually seems to be extensive
  participation in this, we're doing a FAQ on the website.  Hopefully this
  will alleviate alot of this.

# >   I have had no difficulty in obtaining silence in response to my
# > email regarding New Media Labaoratories and their software.
# >   When I received your post, I was on the verge of deciding that their
# > silence was an indication that they wanted me to consider myself their
# > official spokesperson.
# >   That would have been fun.

  Generally I dont waste my time dealing with such ludicrous issues.  You
  people should all realize, that no matter what you do, no matter how
  you do it, as soon as it hit's mailing lists or newsgroups, someone has
  opinions about it, as well as "a better way of doing it".  Well whatever,
  it's all just a monumental waste of bandwidth.

# > 
# > > > It reports results which are obviously
# > > > in error, and there is no way to divine the source or cause of those
# > > > false results.

  If you are speaking of the website statistics, well I'm not even going
  to get involved in this.  I'm working on "doing it right" as time
  permits.  I didnt have much to do with the one that is up there now.

# > 
# >   However, I am referring to the stats that I get on my own machine after
# > the keys have been 'checked'. I had one message telling me, "Keyspace
# > exhausted in 243.12 minutes." The only problem is that it actually took
# > slightly under an hour. If it is wrong about the time, then how can I
# > be expected to believe that it is right about the keys being checked?

  This is due to the fact that you have a bum client :)  New clients,
  (all compiles are being verified by me before put online) are becomming
  available now.  Proxies for all of the platforms we're supporting will
  be available too; caching proxies underway as well.

  The vast majority of the initial clients were not ported by my me.

# > > A second generation of key serv statistics reporting with wiz-bang
# > > graphics and other cool crap can be expected by the end of this
# > > weekend.

  Uh, terrific.

# > 
# >   This is precisely my point. None of the people that are running these
# > programs on our machines have any way of knowing just exactly what is
# > taking place here.
# > <crap deleted>

  I'm getting more and more distressed about this utter waste of bandwidth
  the further down I get here.

  I will put specifics on how the server assigns keyspace onto the website
  in due time.  Frankly, I do not expect, or care, to be the one to break
  this key.  I in no way, shape or form, give unfair advantages to any
  of the participants.  Keys are assigned, they are not ranked and assigned
  based on any preference whatsoever.  This is pretty ridiculous.

  
# > 
# >   I was impressed with the genx homepage and the number of platforms to
# > which the software had been ported. The software itself was ported to
# > Win95 with at least enough competence to do 'something', as opposed to
# > requiring me to reinvent the wheel in order to get it to run.
# >   But I still don't know what it does, in fact, do, or if I am just
# > pissing in the wind by running it. (Or if it was written by the same
# > guys who killed Kennedy).
# >
# >   So, although I appreciate your efforts, until I find a basis for
# > deciding otherwise, I will be using the Orange Crayola to connect
# > you on my chart to the bad-guys on the X Files.

  The client allows you to participate in the RC5-56 contest (at no unfair
  advantage or disadvantage).  That is the bottom line.  If you wish to
  participate, we'd greatly welcome any instructions you can spare.  If
  you don't, that's fine too, best of luck.

earle.

Earle Ady wrote:
> 
> # > > > For instance, New Media Laboratories provides no source code for their
> # > > > software, nor any type of documentation to track what it 'should' be
> # > > > doing vs. what it 'is' doing. 
>   Source code was initially released on a very early version of the
>   RC5-client, after a half dozen or so rogue clients started up, we
>   decided to quickly strop distributing source code until the whole
>   client->server protocol could be devised "the right way".. 

   I didn't get a rogue client. I got a client off of your ftp server.
And I have no idea what it is doing.

>   Well documentation for what it is doing?  It's uh, doing some math
>   or something; that's retarded.

  Is it doing the kind of math that cracks encryption? Or the kind of 
math
that fucks up hard-drives and operating systems?
  It seems to like to access the hard drive for two solid minutes for no
apparent reason while it is connected to your server and, according to
the message, "sleeping." A lot of things can be done in two minutes of
access to a hard drive.
 
>   Now that there actually seems to be extensive
>   participation in this, we're doing a FAQ on the website.  Hopefully this
>   will alleviate alot of this.

  I can appreciate that you seem to have been playing in the backyard
with friends when the whole neighborhood decided to show up and play
with you, but you should realize that if you are serious about gaining
enough support to take your best shot at the DES Crack, that you will
have to provide strangers with enough info to feel comfortable about
running your software on their machines and those of their employers,
etc.
  Some of my readers have sent me email asking if they should be 
concerned about running this-or-that software on their business
boxes, and I tell them, "You should be concerned about everything
you run on your business machine."
   "It's uh, doing some math or something..." isn't a very good basis
for people to run the software on a few million bucks worth of hardware.

>   as soon as it hit's mailing lists or newsgroups, someone has
>   opinions about it, as well as "a better way of doing it".  Well whatever,
>   it's all just a monumental waste of bandwidth.

  I don't think it is a waste of bandwith to question whether people
should feel comfortable downloading and running applications which
provide neither source code nor documentation that can be used to
judge the competence and/or integrity of those producing it.

> # >   However, I am referring to the stats that I get on my own machine after
> # > the keys have been 'checked'. I had one message telling me, "Keyspace
> # > exhausted in 243.12 minutes." The only problem is that it actually took
> # > slightly under an hour. If it is wrong about the time, then how can I
> # > be expected to believe that it is right about the keys being checked?
> 
>   This is due to the fact that you have a bum client :)

  Yet you still call me a fucking retard for wanting to be able
to verify that your software isn't going to turn my machine into
a toaster?

>   New clients,
>   (all compiles are being verified by me before put online) are becomming
>   available now.  Proxies for all of the platforms we're supporting will
>   be available too; caching proxies underway as well.

  This doesn't matter for shit if you have nothing in place to provide
info in this regard for those participating in your group effort.
  
>   I'm getting more and more distressed about this utter waste of bandwidth
>   the further down I get here.

  Since my efforts have led to me finding out that I have a "bum client",
the bandwidth is serving my purpose very well.
 
> # >   I was impressed with the genx homepage and the number of platforms to
> # > which the software had been ported. The software itself was ported to
> # > Win95 with at least enough competence to do 'something', as opposed to
> # > requiring me to reinvent the wheel in order to get it to run.
> # >   But I still don't know what it does, in fact, do, or if I am just
> # > pissing in the wind by running it. (Or if it was written by the same
> # > guys who killed Kennedy).
> # >
> # >   So, although I appreciate your efforts, until I find a basis for
> # > deciding otherwise, I will be using the Orange Crayola to connect
> # > you on my chart to the bad-guys on the X Files.
> 
>   The client allows you to participate in the RC5-56 contest (at no unfair
>   advantage or disadvantage).  That is the bottom line.  If you wish to
>   participate, we'd greatly welcome any instructions you can spare.  If
>   you don't, that's fine too, best of luck.

  Does this include us 'retards' who are 'wasting bandwidth'?

  I am sure that you all are taking great pains to develop the best
possible software for this endeavor, but unless you take care of the
'information' end of the spectrum, you will lose the participation of
those people who require a certain level of assurance that your 
softare meets a decent standard of competence, and that someone is
actually in charge and paying attention.

Toto
-- 
   "A long time ago, being crazy meant something.
  "Now, everybody's crazy."
                              Chuck Manson

# And I have no idea what it is doing.
# 

  You probably should have gotten the source code along with it then.

# math
# that fucks up hard-drives and operating systems?
#   It seems to like to access the hard drive for two solid minutes for no
# apparent reason while it is connected to your server and, according to
# the message, "sleeping." A lot of things can be done in two minutes of
# access to a hard drive.
#  

  As you can see in the source code, the rc5-56-client software does
  not access the disk in any way, shape or form.  Unless your libc.so
  does something in sleep(2V) other than what normal distributions do,
  the program is really sleeping.

#    "It's uh, doing some math or something..." isn't a very good basis
# for people to run the software on a few million bucks worth of hardware.

  Plain and simple, don't run it.  If you do not feel comfortable running
  software, then don't run it.  I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't
  expect you to.  

#   I don't think it is a waste of bandwith to question whether people
# should feel comfortable downloading and running applications which
# provide neither source code nor documentation that can be used to
# judge the competence and/or integrity of those producing it.

  Again, this is all irrelevant since source code has, and will continue to 
  be, available.

#   Yet you still call me a fucking retard for wanting to be able
# to verify that your software isn't going to turn my machine into
# a toaster?

  I think you misinterepreted what I said.  You should spend less time
  over-analyzing this, and more time looking over the source code for
  the client.

#   This doesn't matter for shit if you have nothing in place to provide
# info in this regard for those participating in your group effort.

  Again, this is irrelevalnt.  I have nothing but support from all the
  major groups of people participating in this.  The only person who
  seems so hostile towards this attempt, hasn't even bothered to even
  research what he is talking about.

#   Since my efforts have led to me finding out that I have a "bum client",
# the bandwidth is serving my purpose very well.

  No, it works fine.  The calculation on time is simply off as someone
  didn't compensate for a specific architecture properly.

#   Does this include us 'retards' who are 'wasting bandwidth'?

  This is so off the wall, I'm contemplating printing it out and framing
  it.

#   I am sure that you all are taking great pains to develop the best
# possible software for this endeavor, but unless you take care of the
# 'information' end of the spectrum, you will lose the participation of
# those people who require a certain level of assurance that your 
# softare meets a decent standard of competence, and that someone is
# actually in charge and paying attention.

  Like I said before.  Nobody is forcing you to do anything, as a matter
  of fact, I dont even recall asking you.  Naturally you, as well as
  everyone else, is more than welcome to participate in our efforts,
  and parts of this effort which may be lacking certain lusters will
  certainly be improved.  

  We are doing this in our spare time; I personally do not care to benefit 
  from this in anyway whatsoever.

  These issues are biased based on having obviously not spent enough time
  researching what you are talking about.  Source code has been available,
  you never bothered to even ask.

  I am not going to spend anymore time in apissing contest here.  We have
  around 4000 hosts running this, along with serious participation from
  major vendors.  Again, if you are at all concerned about this, then don't
  participate.  That is the bottom line.

earle.