🚀 go-pugleaf

falstaff@xs4all.nl (Falstaff) wrote:
>
> jcam2@mdw031.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr J Cameron) writes:
> 
> >GuyD@world.net wrote:
> 
> >: It is a fact that Telstra had a software development project in
> >: progress in early 1995, who's aim is to monitor and log phone connections
> >: through their exchanges, to determine:-
> >:   a) Which calls are voice, and which are modem.
> >:   b) If modem, what baud rate and protocol.
> >:   c) Given (b), to determine whether the link is using encryption.
> >:   d) Lastly, given a positive (c), to attempt to analyse what _sort_
> >:      of encryption it is.
> 
> >Come on! Certainly a ban on cryptography is a stupid and unenforcable
> >law, but claiming that THEY are monitoring all our phone calls to check
> >if people are using encryption is absurb.
> [...]
> >Furthermore, is it even possible to tell the difference between
> >encrypted and non-encrypted data? A good encryption scheme could 'hide'
> >cyphertext in some other data, such as an image (steganography). Or you
> >could develop your own encryption system that has no well known header
> >that would identify it.
> 
> I believe that a) and b) are feasable to do, given a small amount of
> computing power (or even a smallish neural network).
> Determining whether the data stream is compressed or not requires it
> to be at least partly decoded -- and we all know that that's difficult
> given the number of MIPS your modem card throws at that problem.
> 
> Besides, if connections were to be monitored like this (note that the
> Australian government is of the leftist kind) people would start to
> use encryption routinely; I can imagine using a fast venom cipher between
> home and the net.provider I use.
> 
> Frank
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank A. Vorstenbosch        +31-(70)-355 5241        falstaff@xs4all.nl