From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Nomen Nescio wrote:> Anark Pnk <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Is APA-S fighting mass control or is it an archaeological museum of used things?

A knife is a tool from the Stone Age, nevertheless still indispensable.
And here in this group it's about principles of anonymous communication
that have stood the test of time resisting surveillance and censorship.

And do you think that resisting with a knife is only a purely aesthetic gesture or something absolutely effective?

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

segfault wrote:> On 16 Feb 2025, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> posted some

news:7d880d3df20d63404fb3690f01ca8798@dizum.com:

Anark Pnk <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Is APA-S fighting mass control or is it an archaeological museum of
used things?

A knife is a tool from the Stone Age, nevertheless still
indispensable. And here in this group it's about principles of
anonymous communication that have stood the test of time resisting
surveillance and censorship.

+1

Who told you it resisted? You say?

Bonne journée et soyez bien!

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 06:54:55 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

On 16 Feb 2025, Cane Cieco <kimsterx25@gmail.com> posted some news:20250216171021.162934060D@4uwpi53u524xdphjw2dv5kywsxmyjxtk4facb76jgl 3sc3nda3sz4fqd.onion:

Nomen Nescio wrote:> Anark Pnk
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Is APA-S fighting mass control or is it an archaeological museum of
used things?

My posting with QSL through Tor keeps even the entry remailer from
knowing my source.

Posting anon protects me from the hackers who can hack well enough to
find out who you are by hacking your news server. There are some
mean bleeps whom I've watched destroy people that way on Usenet.

I don't worry about government surveillance. If they want to find
you, they will. I only worry about the rotten mean hackers inhabiting
the Web.

Thanks to sites like Sec3's, and getting questions answered in apa-
s, even non technical people can stay up on anon programs and
settings. Yes, apa-s is still *very* useful.

A knife is a tool from the Stone Age, nevertheless still
indispensable. And here in this group it's about principles of
anonymous communication that have stood the test of time resisting
surveillance and censorship.

And do you think that resisting with a knife is only a purely
aesthetic gesture or something absolutely effective?

Use of a knife is not ineffective. Police officers are trained how a
capable assailant armed only with a knife can quickly cover some 15
to 20 feet and kill the officer before he can clear his gun from his
holster.

How effective do you think you'll be in knife fight without one? I'll put
a combat trained militarist with a KA-BAR up against a Hi-yah guy without
one any day of the week because I know who's going to win 99.9% of the
time.

Against a true multi belt holder, the usual knife guy would lose.
Against the common martial arts user, those common folks paying for
lessons in those martial art schools, a talented knife guy would
savage them. The belt degrees passed out to those non pros are a
joke. Stay long enough, pay enough, you can get black belt and still
be a klutz against a truly violent street fighter.

Thank goodness that my USA state allows concealed carry of a gun.
Even then, that gun can be worthless if you aren't carefully
assessing the conditions around you, especially a person or two who,
quietly and in a low key way, seem to have you in their attention
span. It takes more than just a weapon to be safe on the urban
streets of today.

Same goes for "legacy" anon communications.

Would you bet your life on Whatsapp or Telegram?

I wouldn't bet my life on my cell phone. The cops are so undermanned
and busy these days, they probably won't reach you until you're lying
in the street maimed or dead. I trust only my constant awareness and
my Colt .45 Commander.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Nomen Nescio wrote:> On 16 Feb 2025, Cane Cieco <kimsterx25@gmail.com> posted some

news:20250216171021.162934060D@4uwpi53u524xdphjw2dv5kywsxmyjxtk4facb76jgl 3sc3nda3sz4fqd.onion:

Nomen Nescio wrote:> Anark Pnk
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Is APA-S fighting mass control or is it an archaeological museum of
used things?

A knife is a tool from the Stone Age, nevertheless still
indispensable. And here in this group it's about principles of
anonymous communication that have stood the test of time resisting
surveillance and censorship.

And do you think that resisting with a knife is only a purely
aesthetic gesture or something absolutely effective?

How effective do you think you'll be in knife fight without one? I'll put
a combat trained militarist with a KA-BAR up against a Hi-yah guy without
one any day of the week because I know who's going to win 99.9% of the
time.

Same goes for "legacy" anon communications.

Would you bet your life on Whatsapp or Telegram?

Unfortunately, the era of melee weapons has come to an end. I don't want us to end up like Don Quixote, whose visionary stubbornness leads him to see reality through distorted eyes. We can keep mistaking outdated tools for bastions of security, vulnerable algorithms for impenetrable shields, and obsolete protocols for solid fortresses, but the truth is different: fighting with dull weapons is not an act of resistance—it’s digital suicide.

Today, the landscape of global surveillance is evolving into something we have no experience of.

Those who insist on clinging to outdated technologies are not protecting privacy; they are endangering it.

Those who control the present have already deciphered the keys to the past.

Gabx

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Nomen Nescio wrote:>>> Would you bet your life on Whatsapp

It's good enough to order drugs. Never had an unappointed visit.

Not having drug dealers arrested in the course of their work can be considered a great success.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Are you just trying to spread FUD in order to support half-baked
experimental toys, or are there any clear indications that conventional encryption is broken, all remailers are compromized and Chaum mixes are
a flawed concept? So which proven alternatives would you recommend?

I have run a remailer out of my own pocket for many years, with my own funds. I don’t think it’s the time to explain to YOU how much I care about APA-S, how much this is not a FUD post, how much i don't depend on shit tools like telegram or whatsapp or what I want to propose as an alternative, neither.

I have seen the evolution of APA-S and if I say this is because if in the past this approach worked, now , with a lot of humility I think it’s no longer the case.

As I see it you try to throw gasoline on a fire that does not exist, it’s only in your head.

Get a life

Gabx

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Gabx <00000@zero.null> wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Are you just trying to spread FUD in order to support half-baked
experimental toys, or are there any clear indications that conventional
encryption is broken, all remailers are compromized and Chaum mixes are
a flawed concept? So which proven alternatives would you recommend?

I have run a remailer out of my own pocket for many years, with my own funds. I don’t think it’s the time to explain to YOU how much I care about APA-S, how much this is not a FUD post, how much i don't depend on shit tools like telegram or whatsapp or what I want to propose as an alternative, neither.

I have seen the evolution of APA-S and if I say this is because if in the past this approach worked, now , with a lot of humility I think it’s no longer the case.

As I see it you try to throw gasoline on a fire that does not exist, it’s only in your head.

Get a life

Gabx

Touching though vacuous.

I wonder why you, driven by such dystopic fantasies of inescapable total surveillance by omnipotent global players, instead of getting a life,
are still actively engaged in this in your view absolutely irrelevant
group of hopelessly ignorant lost souls.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 18/02/2025 08:06, Yamn3 Remailer wrote:

Gabx <00000@zero.null> wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Are you just trying to spread FUD in order to support half-baked
experimental toys, or are there any clear indications that conventional
encryption is broken, all remailers are compromized and Chaum mixes are
a flawed concept? So which proven alternatives would you recommend?

I have run a remailer

What sort?


out of my own pocket for many years, with my own funds. I don’t think
it’s the time to explain to YOU how much I care about APA-S, how much
this is not a FUD post, how much i don't depend on shit tools like
telegram or whatsapp or what I want to propose as an alternative, neither.

I have seen the evolution of APA-S and if I say this is because if in the past this approach worked, now , with a lot of humility I think it’s no longer the case.

As I see it you try to throw gasoline on a fire that does not exist, it’s only in your head.

Get a life

Gabx

Touching though vacuous.

I wonder why you, driven by such dystopic fantasies of inescapable total surveillance by omnipotent global players, instead of getting a life,
are still actively engaged in this in your view absolutely irrelevant
group of hopelessly ignorant lost souls.

Well, naming no names, there are a few about ...

Looking at this thread, I'm unsure what APA-S actually is? I know of the affine-power-affine S-box, typically used as a replacement for the AES
s-box, but is there something else? From context it isn't clear.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trust the affine-power-affine S-box any more
than I would the AES s-box - probably less, as it hasn't had as much
analysis. What did Schneier say? Ah, here 'tis:

"Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can
create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard.
What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even
after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject
the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around."

Of course he is wrong about years of analysis proving anything,
especially as the creator who wants to create a cipher which he alone
can break as he has the advantage of design obscurity - but it does help.



As to idea that the PTB tweaked AES so they could read it, well maybe.
That would be in (part of) their remit, they have tried similar things
in the past, and they would love to do it.

But I don't think they did or could have, except maybe some of the
tweaks on AES-256. The real spooks are looking at Soviet and Chinese
(and probably Iranian etc) ciphers, the peepers have their place but the
PTB also have a responsibility to secure domestic ciphers against furriners.

Just my 2p.

Peter Fairbrother


--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2