[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] OT surveillance
- To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [LUG] OT surveillance
- From: Martijn Grooten <sweetwatergeek@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:03:54 +0100
- Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Fv90CBi0KDyJ+/BaDXTIAtkNA1xciIgqputue72AVP8=; b=Z5uUGaTLok8aAr3L/KUeQXWkkB0mn9A/VJNrRPZ6/ppitDiPBSSC0fRPD8Tcsz6/5V r2Wh/Rt8yb1X38YkkpMnwLzt17s6Ca/mI4BMevoRo9xljQMjwuUFKQ/jXfs7vXXacKAa N4tShWvw1U2c+aIx4f4UJM9TUP9Yftp7xZJYdYOgNGmzg6sVzuM3yega+5tUNsd6f0Wo kcPpUZgWlHwyNHQtIp2/AT2edUIu1Y1vTakDpYODhfaiPhz7U2qP23So2sfLvS/LoHAD +1BokNe8O/v9ZZQ3XhR7I9BNNH+TPoZoa9zAKx3VM6nciRJ0xNEGXvONaQl/or3e8qpD 9jLw==
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Kai Hendry wrote:
> Are we comfortable with that?
I certainly am not.
But what still isn't clear to me, is how GCHQ deals with encrypted
traffic. If they just have to discard it (except perhaps the metadata
of sending and connecting IP address) they're wasting their time and
energy. If they can break it, it is beyond scary. I am actually sure
they can't break SSL, at least not in general, but most of the stories
I've read seem to ignore that fact.
Martijn.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
