Standard US cryptographic protocol during the same time period was to begin and end every message with a few random words specifically to thwart such attacks.
Seems like an interesting conundrum. If you encrypt all transmissions, you end up having a lot of boring repetition, like weather and sign offs to just fill space. But if you don't encrypt the boring stuff, then the transmission itself is a nice signal of something interesting about to happen. But if you try to just pad with completely random noise, the other end might worry they've decoded something wrong and ask for a new cipher pad increasing the chance of interception. So maybe they should have tried to find something almost random but with known structure instead of sending the weather? Seems similar to how we now know that choosing a random password from the dictionary adds encoding redundancy without reducing security. Or similar to the goal of getting ordinary people to use Tor for ordinary things?
In modern crypto it’s solved by using random nonce to star with and by using (encrypted) hash of data at the end. Random nonce gives you different cypher text for same inputs, hash tells you if you actually decrypted what was intended.
No, PFS is to ensure communications aren't compromised even if the server's private keys are compromised afterwards. It has nothing to do with mitigating known plaintext attacks. That's already mitigated with techniques like randomized IVs.
So-called perfect forward secrecy uses temporary keys so that eavesdropped logs can't be decrypted after those keys are discarded. To prevent known-plaintext attacks and/or statistical analysis, data entropy must be equalized so that patterns won't be apparent even before encryption.
No - our actual encryption primitives work better, and don't suffer from this problem. (Other comments give an explanation of what PFS is actually for).
But otherwise this is really something that tourist organisations could champion, in combination with national mapping services. It's not like the routes are somehow obscure, or user-generated they're often national trails strung together. Switzerland Mobility is a good example of this. You can also hook official weather providers. The fact that we need private apps is bizarre.
From experience, the bread has a better rise when I feed my starter for three or more cycles/days after storing it in the fridge. As if it needs to "wake up" and increase its speed of metabolism.
I agree that most leaders will now they are fallible, and also have some idea of which things are problematic. As an inexperienced leader, I still valued getting "known feedback". It gave me a better idea of which problems were growing too large, and which ones remained minor annoyances. In addition, acknowledging the points that were brought up and explaining why I hadn't gotten to addressing them (besides being human) usually gave the person giving the feedback a more positive outlook.
That's an interesting idea, you'd probably be able to know ip addresses via wireguard. Protocols like CoAP or SenML can be used to keep payloads small.
MQTT, aside from being pubsub, has more functionality that is especially useful in IoT though: robust sessions with LW&T to monitor onlineness, and retained topics to deliver messages as devices come online again
Yes, but in an indirect way. At some point, nitrogen deposition was identified as harmful to nature, and emissions targets were put in place. Politicians then did everything they could not to be the one having to introduce unpopular legislation, until they couldn't anymore. Now the government has painted themselves in a corner and cannot give permits for building projects anymore without breaking the law.
I think we'll see this more often in the future when the consequences of ambitious targets will need to be reckoned with.
I suspect it might also be trying to avoid targeting the base.
If you can fit your compliance push into something that seems minor and distant for most voters, it's probably less politically toxic than going for the direct problem that might be controversial.
"We need to scrap gas guzzlers" is a direct attack on your voters, but "We might not be able to issue construction permits in 2025" is distant and doesn't necessarily affect anyone you know personally.
It probably comes from the same mindset that says "let's pay for a lot of (programme) with a high surtax on hotel rooms because that pretty much only impacts external tourists who aren't going to vote us out over it."
And yet, these "ambitious targets" as you characterize them, are insufficient.
I don't even need to know the target or the efficacy. The static political situation and power structures versus the actuals of three decades of climate science have not significantly changed. The only improvements have been solar/wind/battery changing the efficiency and emissions game, but REDUCTIONS are still effectively nothing.
All "emissions targets" are "compromises" between political ignorance/denialism and reality. Everywhere. Until the rich realize they are directly affected (not their children, the elite care nothing for their children), real policy won't emerge.
I suspect nitrogen remediation with carbon capture using fast-growing plants like bamboo might be part of the solution.
One thing eludes me, though: the Netherlands' highly productive agricultural exports are mostly due to growing vegetables like tomatoes in greenhouses, where th effluent can be controlled. Nitrogen pollution is typically more the result of large-scale livestock or pig farming. The sector actually impacted by the restrictions might not be the most productive one.
That is not nearly the same thing. The US and western Europe have been roughly aligned about geopolitical interests, values (democracy, freedom, mostly liberal, based on a secularising Christian foundation), rules and laws. China is diametrically opposed on all those things.
The cultural influence of the US on Europe is enormous, and the US has often crossed the line spying on European citizens, but the US is not an adversary.
The only values the US and the EU align on are brutal profiteering at the expense of overseas territories. If anything, I kind of hope that China replaces the US as the influential friend and we get less of this war apologism. The US is a big bully and at every turn where it has influenced EU culture the EU has become objectively worse. For it's own citizens, for any foreign powers interacting with it, the works.
I don't think the opposition is as diametric as you may think, when it comes to values. I've been to China several times and from my perspective, US liberalism has embraced quite a lot of Communist China's values and behaviors. For example:
1. Committing acts of violence against people they don't agree with.
2. Silencing opposing opinions.
3. Media and political propaganda, projection, and gaslighting.
4. Vilifying segments of society.
5. A tiered justice system.
6. Consequentialism.
7. Destruction of history to fit a modern narrative.
