kana, You're the same guy who posted the BS about Windows being less efficient because it uses more RAM. I hope you read my post in that thread because you really have no knowledge of computing principles nor of basic EM (electromagnetic) principles. First off, in order for an electronic product to even be sold to the public, it has to pass FCC emissions testing. Do you know what that is? In simplistic terms, it means any EM radiation must be contained in the box, i.e. no signals escape from the box itself... even still, do you know how noisy a computer motherboard is? For f--k's sake, its like the worst traffic you could imagine, the mere thought of deciphering any of it is science fiction pal. Second, the DVI or RGB cable that connects the PC to the monitor has a specially encoded TDMS (time-division-muliplexed-signal) that has very low radiation with exponential attenuation as you move further away from the metal, we're talking like half the EM signal for every millimeter you move away from the wire... Unless there is a device amplifying the signal (a device physically attached to the cable), there is no way to snoop data... I don't even know why I bother to respond to this garbage... you're so uneducated with respect to this stuff its just sad.
The issue is trust. Unless you do the tests yourself you shouldn't trust any sources. I found out few years ago that US and foreign agencies will put out disinformation on adequate encryption algorithms. For example I found out cooperation between microsoft, banks, and makers of PGP with NSA the reason for it is "backdoors" For example I can see that great many of you are happy with protection that will stop civilian hackers etc. But I don't see things that way. The way I look at computer security is It either is fool proof 99.999% secure or it is not secure at all. Although this algorithm seems impressive on paper. I would have to do my own tests. It being only 256 bit makes me VERY VERY nervous using it. It would not be the first time deception occurs. Another thing you are not keeping in mind (and frankly I am getting tired educating for free) "still far beyond any computer" doesn't mean much. NSA has built its own custom designed super clusters NO ONE IS ALLOWED IN, President Obama wouldn't be let in to see it. How can anyone claim what is impossible for NSA to do. If you want true security. You can not take chances, you need to do what's been proven to work before.
First of all, you got the wrong guy, I am Kana, not someone else. Second. You are completely wrong on your posts about emissions. You are one of those guys who gets Grade A on tests, but the book you studied is a lie. Do you have ANY idea how much TEMPEST upgrades cost for CIA/NSA/FBI Why would they do any of that if what you wrote is accurate. You are a grade A fool.
Furthermore, You are extremely arrogant and you shouldn't be because information is FREE http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempest.html This is my last post. It's been fun......I guess.
I did some work on AES in college. Nothing breakthrough but I understand it backwards and forward. I don't trust that your testing even comes close. I want to see you crack stevegee58's file
If you use TrueCrypt, the biggest risk is still you screwing things up, not the strength of AES-256. So make sure to follow best practices. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/security-requirements-and-precautions While AES-256 itself is good, a specific implementation can have blatant flaws. Example with NIST certification: http://www.h-online.com/security/ne...-with-hardware-encryption-cracked-895308.html Anyway, the most likely attack scenario is not brute-force. I recommend this report about the top 15 data breach threats for corporations. http://www.verizonbusiness.com/reso...-investigations-supplemental-report_en_xg.pdf
He doesnt realize that after encrypting his file 20 or more times, it automatically reverts to plaintext. Moron.