User talk:Matt Crypto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • A little editing never hurt anyone... — Matt Crypto 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Of Lefties and Loyalties

hey.. not sure where your loyalties lie, but I came across a lady who was recently in voting to become a wikipedia admin - i'm not sure what her wikipedia id is, but her name is Thelca or Telca or something like that. She is of the Order of the Left Handed Path - and was IN voting about 10 days ago. (October 20th) If you have some spare time, check it out. There's enough official sided stuff without left handed help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs). (moved by Prometheus-X303- 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

(Thanks Prometheus). Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. — Matt Crypto 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My fault

I was wrong to revert. I saw a word that got added that looked like "talia", a name this vandal keeps adding. I rushed too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saros136 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work (and don't forget to sign your talk page posts with the old four squiggly things ~~~~ — Matt Crypto 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RFCU

Sorry about the cross-posting on the CheckUser. Do you think I should remove it as "no longer needed", or leave it to see if any interesting data comes of it? If it were up to me, I'd say leave it, but I see it as your call at this point. --Elonka 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not -- it may well be that further evidence can be provided by it. I'm comfortable with the current grounds for a block, but a CheckUser can't hurt. — Matt Crypto 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) --Elonka 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think there's a mistake on the "reasoning ..." part of the Bombe page

Hi. I see you put a ton of stuff up on the Bombe page, which I've just been reading. It's great, but I think there's a small mistake that makes the reasoning flawed. In "Reasoning about steckered values" it says "we can also observe that T encrypts to W at position 2", but in fact T encrypts to S at position 2. I couldn't work this out, so (sadly) I trawled through the old edits to find you had originally had the cipher text start WW but changed it (on 11/11/04) to WS. You had updated a reference earlier in the article, but not the equations lower down.

Either I have interpreted it wrong, or nobody has spotted it for two years. I would change it so that it makes sense, but I thought you might want to comment since you did all the hard work in the first place!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DI Ramekin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look... — Matt Crypto 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting this. I've had a stab at fixing it. I'm not quite sure why I made this mistake; it may be that I changed the example half-way through, and was working from an old example. I don't like the other explanation, which is maybe I'm just stupid ;-) — Matt Crypto 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with the first explanation if I were you! Glad to have helped. DI Ramekin 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centauri reincarnated as 125.253.33.180

Can you block this IP address? and this one too:125.253.35.155 Should Centauri be allowed to edit using IP addresses while he is blocked? He wrote: "I'll be editing anonymously until the block on me is reversed, so I won't be keeping as close an eye on things as before. --125.253.33.180 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Centauri)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert" I've also asked Taxman the same question, but don't know if he is around at this hour. Harvardy 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this sock of the troll Wik editing anything? --125.253.33.65 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Matt. While Centauri is clearly editing from the above anons despite the current block, the Harvardy edits are vandalizing Centauri's former articles of focus, and Harvardy is a listed Wik sock. I'm not going to defend Centauri's editing while blocked, but something terminal should be done about Harvardy as well. Georgewilliamherbert 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Already been done, it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Harvardy — Matt Crypto 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There's another one: 80.86.82.170 (talk • contribs • count). Can you take a look at them and block if appropriate? They've been blocked repeatedly recently and are back vandalizing stuff. Georgewilliamherbert 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, you don't really need to revert anything Centauri leaves anonymously on my talk page. I know it's within policy, but he's not hurting anything doing that. I asked him to just communicate via his talk page but his coming to mine is harmless. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] we don't do trivia

i am not particulary fond of trivia, but is that a general policy or that. i actually often amuse myself with removing things like:

Klaus Barbie is given a rare comedic reference in the 2001 movie "Rat Race," where the family of John Lovitz's character makes a stop along a cross-country road trip to visit the "Barbie Museum," which Lovitz's daughter mistakenly assumes to be a roadside attraction dedicated to her favorite doll. Instead, the museum turns out to be a creepy shrine to the Nazi dictator - and Lovitz's family beats a hasty retreat in what they later discover to be Adolf Hitler's car.

if it is general policy, even better, can you tell me where i find this, makes it easier for me to argue... trueblood 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, Barbie is an unfortunate name indeed. There's the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline and WP:TRIVIA essay. I think people mostly agree that genuine trivia shouldn't be included, but often it turns out that what people put in sections labelled "Trivia" is actually non-trivial, and could be usefully incorporated somewhere else in the article. Renaming to something like "Miscellaneous facts", pruning genuine trivia and integrating other facts into the rest of the article seems to be a reasonable strategy. — Matt Crypto 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redman

OK, I found one under a usable license - [1] - but it stinks. Do you think it's worth keeping? Check the link at Matt Redman - I'm inclined to say no, so I've gone with db-userreq. If you think it's better than nothing, feel free to remove it. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, good find. I actually think any illustration is better than none (hence my horrible grainy picture from '96). I've uploaded to Commons and added it to the article. — Matt Crypto 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I really don't appreciate your insinuations...

You really don't know anything about the person who made these designs. I do. Don't insult me with offensive accusations and stop interfering with me.

[edit] Johnski sock accounts

Can you please block Harvardy and FairHair. It's obvious that they're both Johnski socks being used to disrupt Wikipedia by co-ordinating vandalism of Empire of Atlantium and my user page. Thanks. --Gene_poole 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest FairHair stuff

Might want to take a look at his contributions and my vandalism warnings on his talk page. He's throwing more Gene sock claims around in edit summaries and vandalized several Gene Poole related/edited pages. Georgewilliamherbert 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Still at it last night. He's under 3RR, but this is disruptive at best. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Matt—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you for protecting 'singing bowl'

Thank you for stopping the crazy editing war over the post for 'singing bowl.' This person - b9hummingbird whatever - has been continuously replacing the long standing text with his own version which is not only poorly written but also full of conjectural theories and outright false facts. The version you chose to protect was composed by 3 of the world's leading experts on the subject and has been up for several months. Thanks for protecting it - is there any way to stop b9 hummingbird from continuing his assault on rationality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.161.89 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Singing bowl protection

I thank you for locking 'singing bowl' and acknowledge the page locked is not an endorsement of the version therein. Something needed to happen to progress this stonewall. What does this undisclosed editor think the feeling of wellbeing they experience when resonating the singing bowl is? What is the mechanism that initiates this state? Answers to these questions do have a place within this article. It is a form of meditative trance. Regardless, I have cited references and requested dialogue with this editor. The other editor has not endeavoured to enter into dialogue and has provided no references to support their assertions and consistency refuses to create a login for probity. The other editor also resorts to offensive assertions and mud-slinging in an effort to slander me and the content which is disrespectful and inappropriate. They are railroading and I assert that they are endeavouring to commercially profit from perpetuating ignorance. I would assert that a regular user of singing bowls would be more harmonious and inclusive in their relationships and would appreciate the value of difference and the importance of different voices in scholarship. At minimum, I would like a clear distinction between 'new singing bowls' and 'traditional' ones and the inclusion of the sentence on fountain bowls. The references cited should be included as they are reputable and no others have as yet been entered. Let the other editor provide additional references that support their claims or counter what has been stated. This difference adds to the interest of the article and is demonstrably inclusive of different perspectives which is true to the voice of neutrality that is of the guiding ethos of Wikipedia. The editor should be encouraged to create an account so true dialogue can be entertained. I have clearly stated that I am willing to work together to find a mutually agreeable resolution. May I ask how this situation is now to be progressed? B9 hummingbird hovering 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LibTom Project/Tom St Denis

Hi, should i assume LibTom Project dead, and add some more content to Tom St Denis? ... all this process is very new/strange to me. Alejandro Mery 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the former will be deleted and the latter kept, unless much changes between now and the end of the debate. You're quite welcome to try and improve the article before then, of course. Process is, um, horrible and complex, really, but I suppose it's better than anarchy ;-) — Matt Crypto 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I put some deets on my talk page. Since I guess they want to keep the article (flattering...) we should at least make it interesting. I won't write the article myself (vanity and NPOV issues) but I'll contribute info to the talk page as/when/if the article is re-written. As I said to Alejandro in a private email, this article would probably be more interesting after part 1 of my third book is out (end of 2007). At least then, there would be a nice verbose written record of what the hell the "LibTom Projects" are and the person/politics behind it.  :-) -- Tom

[edit] Regarding revert for Data Encryption Standard

Hey Matt, I just wanted to contact you about your revert to my edit on the Data Encryption Standard article. It read:

"Monetary losses as a result of DES's relative insecurity do occur, though this trend is expected to fade as more businesses turn to other, more secure encryption algorithms. A prevalent, though illegal, example of this are websites specializing in Internet pornography--computer hackers have been known to collect databases of usernames and their encrypted password counterparts (which are almost universally encrypted in DES) in order to decrypt them and gain access to the website. Many such sites charge a monthly fee for access, meaning that the companies lose a significant amount of profit, especially if the decrypted accounts are distributed over the Internet."

I'm not sure how I'd find a source for something that is obviously illegal and very underground. Also, you stated that "it could well be that DES itself wasn't broken, but rather the passwords, which had been hashed using a DES derivative, were guessed." I'm not really sure what you mean by that. A brute force attack would be used (well, more often than not a dictionary-based attack), which is a valid form of decryption, no? If you find out what the passwords are, aren't you breaking the decryption? You still need to have the right salt and everything, right? Also, what do you mean by DES derivative? Thanks; I just wanted to ask you about this. :) --pie4all88 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pie4all88, a few answers: first, if something isn't sourced, we can't use it in a Wikipedia article. We have to be quite strict on that one. Second, passwords are typically obscured by hashing them, not encryption, and one password hashing algorithm was based on DES, although it wasn't DES (see Crypt_(Unix)#Traditional_DES-based_scheme). This is why I speculate that your examples were referring to that, and not DES encryption; one of the weaknesses of not having a source is that I can't examine it to see ;-) Third, if you recover the passwords through a dictionary attack or other such method, that's not a weakness in the hash function; even a perfect hash function cannot stop you from recovering passwords if they can be guessed, so it's not a "break" of the algorithm. — Matt Crypto 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, ok, thanks, Matt. If you're looking for examples of what I'm talking about, here are a couple of usernames/passwords that I happened to stumble upon: mWariers:T7A4qWZ.hYcTM othmir:Cl48MQjZ8bSeI southern:30wzNExU2U4ng abbottrd:87LAOHFviOQuE wfield:65PrPWHfnuEro khoney:93V4AIPhWiiJY saintmon:87caxnFGS9tt6 alexhk05:36/4Jou7.24LM . As I understand it, the first two(?) characters represent the salt (with 4,096 combinations--maybe that should be added to the DES article?) that the hash uses (by the way, what's the difference between a key and a hash? I can't seem to understand it from the Wikipedia pages). And what exactly is the difference between a hash like this and a normal instance of DES being used? Sorry if this is kind of convoluted; it's 4:30 AM here and I'm tired. :) --pie4all88 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference between a cipher and a hash is that you can undo the cipher if (and only if) you know the key; whereas there is no way in general to undo the effect of a hash; it's "one-way". DES itself is a block cipher, designed for encryption and decryption of 64-bit blocks given a 56-bit key. However, you can also use any block cipher as a building block to make a hash function. There's many ways to do this, and one way is to use the method as described in Crypt_(Unix) (although that method actually modifies DES itself by fiddling with one of the permutations). — Matt Crypto 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I guess that makes sense. Hashes and ciphers are therefore, in theory at least, equally secure if the hash is based on the cipher, right? Thanks for all the help, Matt. --pie4all88 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad I could help. See also [[Hash functions based on block ciphers]. It's not necessarily the case that a hash based on a secure block cipher is secure. It depend on the specific construction used; some are weak. — Matt Crypto 11:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I didnt mean it to be helpfull, I was enforcing the policy. 1B6 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stored-programme computer

Are you quite sure of your spelling? I believe this is a UK publication: http://plus.maths.org/issue5/turing/ Which consistently uses the phrase "stored-programme computer". Are they wrong then? laddiebuck 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not wrong, but "program" is acceptable UK English for computer programs; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#Different_spellings_.E2.80.93_different_meanings. — Matt Crypto 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/t/User_talk%7EMatt_Crypto_6529.html"