Timeline for What stops an internet router from sniffing my traffic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2013 at 16:28 | audit | First posts | |||
| Dec 15, 2013 at 17:23 | |||||
| Dec 13, 2013 at 7:27 | audit | First posts | |||
| Dec 13, 2013 at 8:33 | |||||
| Dec 12, 2013 at 8:08 | audit | First posts | |||
| Dec 12, 2013 at 8:09 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2013 at 10:37 | comment | added | Andrey Vihrov | @FrankThomas: Just scroll down to the "Implementations" section… | |
| Nov 27, 2013 at 9:23 | comment | added | mveroone | We might be a bit out of context now. From simple eavesdropping awareness/protection, we reach quantum computing. We should invent the "Heisenberg point" where any computing discussion reach quantums instead of nazis. | |
| Nov 27, 2013 at 3:14 | comment | added | Frank Thomas | ok man, now you're reaching. quantum computing is not a practical reality, and even if it were it would only be able to use Heisenberg to its advantage if the entire network between the two nodes was optical and using a quantum configuration. | |
| Nov 27, 2013 at 0:20 | comment | added | Andrey Vihrov | @FrankThomas: It is possible to generate a secure key over distance, or abort communication if someone is eavesdropping: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 18:47 | comment | added | Guido | @Cruncher, Not easy at all because of certificates. When one connects to an https URL you check that the host you're contacting matches the private key it's supposed to have (via a crypto challenge, I think) | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:15 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | @FrankThomas: The US government uses one-time pads for its most secure transmissions. They transfer truck-loads of tapes with large random keys on them by armed-guard, or so the story goes. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 15:00 | comment | added | mveroone | Most branded high-grace core routers have (Documented or undocumented) backdoors, theoriticaly reserved for legal purposes, but which could somehow be used by someone else. Better assume it's possible and protect yourself than bet on luck ;) | |
| S Nov 26, 2013 at 15:00 | history | suggested | robingrindrod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed spelling and grammar
|
| Nov 26, 2013 at 14:43 | comment | added | Cruncher | The next question, is how feasible is it for those routers to man-in-the-middle you? Should that be a different question? | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 14:38 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 26, 2013 at 15:00 | |||||
| Nov 26, 2013 at 14:30 | comment | added | mveroone | @Naughty.Coder I still think that I have answered the question fully. He wants to protect himself, theire is only one solution, and I'm telling him which. Now if he wants deepest advices, we need more data on what he wants to do. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 13:37 | comment | added | user | @FrankThomas The Wikipedia article mentions some situations in which OTPs can actually be useful. The most obvious is where you have a secure channel now but need to be able to communicate with provable security later. For normal communications, however, they are indeed impractical (though hardly "impossible"; ever tried doing AES-256 with paper and pencil?). | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 13:31 | comment | added | Frank Thomas | OTP is an impossible algorithm. the keylength must be the same as the message length, so if you have a secure channel to transmit the key (which is essential, because if you ever use a key for more than one message, the OTP can be attacked through lexicographical analysis), you might as well use that same secure channel to pass the message in the first place. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 13:26 | comment | added | user | @rxt One-time pads are information-theoretically secure. Of course, they also have some pretty serious downsides. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 13:20 | comment | added | SPRBRN | @MarcksThomas - please provide at least a link to those unbeatable encryption schemes to show what you mean. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 12:58 | comment | added | Marcks Thomas | Actually, encryption schemes exist that can never be defeated. 'With enough time, any encryption can be broken' is not necessarily true. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 12:56 | comment | added | Naughty.Coder | oh this is terrifying. a complex solution for naives | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 12:49 | history | answered | mveroone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |