From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.stack.nl!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: library/binding for sftp? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:59:47 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <85li4gmhrt.fsf@stephe-leake.org><2wgl8bcmdsu0$.1rs1604fzwufv.dlg@40tude.net><85vc3jfias.fsf@stephe-leake.org><1gwg87tgm2bo7$.ae7440ka6kmc.dlg@40tude.net><85bo59g6h7.fsf@stephe-leake.org><5987935c-dbce-4602-b0e6-2bb85513588b@googlegroups.com><9oo34px7j5ko$.1j7bcnxwzgcxe.dlg@40tude.net><20130808111404.5fc6ce14@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se><1nfcrgjw8vkrb.1aukq12ys882l$.dlg@40tude.net><20130808133709.09dfef98@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> <20130809104904.6ca91de2@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1377032388 25307 69.95.181.76 (20 Aug 2013 20:59:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:59:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16919 Date: 2013-08-20T15:59:47-05:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:alpine.DEB.2.10.1308200931020.28419@debian... On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Randy Brukardt wrote: ... >> If you truly are using only "unknown protocols", then you're by >> definition >> using a private wired connection, > >Randy, please check your logic. The sentence in question was > "unfocused surveillance which works only with known protocols". >This is logically equivalent to > "unfocused surveillance does not work if at least one protocol is > unknown." I don't see this at all. There is nothing in the original sentence which implies exclusivity. So long as there is a known protocol in use, unfocused surveillance may work. (Whether there are other, unknown protocols in use, or whether all protocols are known, is irrelevant.) That's because the surveillance of TCP/IP (for instance) may not need to know anything about the other protocols in use to work (for instance, if only the routing is of interest, the contents of the packets is irrelevant). So you are arguing with a straw man, definitely not what Dmitry originally said. (What he meant I don't know, of course.) I know from working on the Ada Standard that it is quite reasonable for readers to get two different meanings out of the same set of English text. For the Ada Standard, we usually apply the so-called "Dewar rule", which states that the Ada Standard does not include nonsense. (And then we often try to clarify the wording.) I might be guilty of applying that rule to Dmitry's text - if there are multiple plausible readings, I'm assuming that the most sensible one was meant. >I claim that using a homemade protocol over an existing physical and >transport layer can (and actually is likely to) be less secure than a >well-evaluated and publicly known security protocol. And I claim it is irrelevant. The use of the public internet is never very secure and you can be certain that at least basic behavior is monitored. >The statement you are trying to defend is logically different > "unfocused surveillance does not work if all protocols are > unknown." > >This is not a definition -- but it is a statement I can agree with. Good, because it is what was originally said. :-) Or more accurately, the original statement had nothing to say about whether or not all protocols are unknown. ... >> In truth, though, it's probably all pointless. The government (anybodies >> government) will soon ban computers that they can't control. > >I am fairly optimistic that this will not happen in Europe. I am not so >sure about the US. I don't much care about the world outside of the US, at least as far as living goes. (It's impractical to move somewhere where I don't understand the language, and all English-speaking countries are as bad or worse than the US.) Randy.