<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_06_1549237</id>
	<title>Hacker Jeff Moss Sworn Into Homeland Security Advisory Council</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244309460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:wkandek@qualys.com" rel="nofollow">Wolfgang Kandek</a> writes <i>"Hacker Jeff Moss, founder of computer security conferences DEFCON and Black Hat, has been <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10258634-83.html">sworn in as one of the new members</a> of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (<a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr\_1244227862914.shtm">HSAC</a>) of the DHS. Moss, who goes by the handle 'the Dark Tangent' says he was surprised to be asked to join the council and that he was nominated to <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/hacker-dark-tangent-joins-dhs-security-council/">bring an 'outside perspective</a>' to its meetings. He said, 'I know there is a new-found emphasis on cybersecurity, and they're looking to diversify the members and to have alternative viewpoints. I think they needed a skeptical outsider's view because that has been missing.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wolfgang Kandek writes " Hacker Jeff Moss , founder of computer security conferences DEFCON and Black Hat , has been sworn in as one of the new members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council ( HSAC ) of the DHS .
Moss , who goes by the handle 'the Dark Tangent ' says he was surprised to be asked to join the council and that he was nominated to bring an 'outside perspective ' to its meetings .
He said , 'I know there is a new-found emphasis on cybersecurity , and they 're looking to diversify the members and to have alternative viewpoints .
I think they needed a skeptical outsider 's view because that has been missing .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wolfgang Kandek writes "Hacker Jeff Moss, founder of computer security conferences DEFCON and Black Hat, has been sworn in as one of the new members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) of the DHS.
Moss, who goes by the handle 'the Dark Tangent' says he was surprised to be asked to join the council and that he was nominated to bring an 'outside perspective' to its meetings.
He said, 'I know there is a new-found emphasis on cybersecurity, and they're looking to diversify the members and to have alternative viewpoints.
I think they needed a skeptical outsider's view because that has been missing.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236515</id>
	<title>Sshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that has lost FreeBSD went out or mislead the The developer the problems</htmltext>
<tokenext>that has lost FreeBSD went out or mislead the The developer the problems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that has lost FreeBSD went out or mislead the The developer the problems</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238519</id>
	<title>Thats one way to get a job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244302680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because apparently, these days, you cant be an up and up citizen with good character and integrity.  You have to either not pay your taxes, be a bigoted racist, a hate-mongering preacher, a domestic terrorist, etc or you wont get the nod for a good job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because apparently , these days , you cant be an up and up citizen with good character and integrity .
You have to either not pay your taxes , be a bigoted racist , a hate-mongering preacher , a domestic terrorist , etc or you wont get the nod for a good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because apparently, these days, you cant be an up and up citizen with good character and integrity.
You have to either not pay your taxes, be a bigoted racist, a hate-mongering preacher, a domestic terrorist, etc or you wont get the nod for a good job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>The Dark Tangent</author>
	<datestamp>1244299920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the encouragement! I serve at the pleasure of the Secretary, and will do my best to give the HSAC and her the information and opinions I think are necessary to make informed and non-lame decisions. The rest will be up to the powers that be. Like someone said in another post, I have no horse in this race. I'll try to make a positive change and if I feel I can't because I am the wrong person for the job then I'll step aside for someone who can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the encouragement !
I serve at the pleasure of the Secretary , and will do my best to give the HSAC and her the information and opinions I think are necessary to make informed and non-lame decisions .
The rest will be up to the powers that be .
Like someone said in another post , I have no horse in this race .
I 'll try to make a positive change and if I feel I ca n't because I am the wrong person for the job then I 'll step aside for someone who can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the encouragement!
I serve at the pleasure of the Secretary, and will do my best to give the HSAC and her the information and opinions I think are necessary to make informed and non-lame decisions.
The rest will be up to the powers that be.
Like someone said in another post, I have no horse in this race.
I'll try to make a positive change and if I feel I can't because I am the wrong person for the job then I'll step aside for someone who can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235683</id>
	<title>Re:More change for the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish your perspective were shared among more in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish your perspective were shared among more in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish your perspective were shared among more in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237213</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>merc</author>
	<datestamp>1244289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's another talented, unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in government</i></p><p>Why the hell do you say that?  Do you even know Jeff?  As someone who does I can tell you your statements are ridiculous, why don't you shut the fuck up before you end up looking even stupider than you already do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's another talented , unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in governmentWhy the hell do you say that ?
Do you even know Jeff ?
As someone who does I can tell you your statements are ridiculous , why do n't you shut the fuck up before you end up looking even stupider than you already do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's another talented, unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in governmentWhy the hell do you say that?
Do you even know Jeff?
As someone who does I can tell you your statements are ridiculous, why don't you shut the fuck up before you end up looking even stupider than you already do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237545</id>
	<title>Jeff Moss' FBI Handler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244293080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeff Moss initially got started as an FBI informant working with members of the "Legion of Doom"; his FBI handler was named Dick Brandis, a former polygrapher for the Pittsburgh PA Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Brandis eventually ended up resigning from the Pittsburgh FBI for taking classified government information home with him and establishing his own network of hackers that Moss et al would get into compromising positions and then blackmail for information and unpublished exploits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeff Moss initially got started as an FBI informant working with members of the " Legion of Doom " ; his FBI handler was named Dick Brandis , a former polygrapher for the Pittsburgh PA Federal Bureau of Investigation .
Brandis eventually ended up resigning from the Pittsburgh FBI for taking classified government information home with him and establishing his own network of hackers that Moss et al would get into compromising positions and then blackmail for information and unpublished exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeff Moss initially got started as an FBI informant working with members of the "Legion of Doom"; his FBI handler was named Dick Brandis, a former polygrapher for the Pittsburgh PA Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Brandis eventually ended up resigning from the Pittsburgh FBI for taking classified government information home with him and establishing his own network of hackers that Moss et al would get into compromising positions and then blackmail for information and unpublished exploits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236475</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judas!</p><p>What's next? Theo de Raadt as the cybersecurity czar? Geez .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judas ! What 's next ?
Theo de Raadt as the cybersecurity czar ?
Geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judas!What's next?
Theo de Raadt as the cybersecurity czar?
Geez .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28257489</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1244459040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very good explanation of how one way hash passwords work... I always emphasize that the passwords are NOT STORED ANYWHERE!</p><p>What I find much more distressing is how many systems use more complex systems to store passwords.  I could implement a reasonably good one-way hash password system in nearly any programming language in very few lines of code and have a very low risk of the user's passwords being compromised.  But many systems still insist on keeping that password stored in a reversible format, even though it's much more complex to implement securely.</p><p>I HATE those web systems that send you your password in an email... that's always nice of them to broadcast my password to the world like that.  A properly implemented system shouldn't even let them know my password!</p><p>I have spent hours of my life trying to explain to users why their password gets changed if I ever need to authenticate as them in one of our systems.  They hate it, but when I explain that it's actually a good thing (they know when someone has accessed their account), they usually love the idea of the one-way hash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good explanation of how one way hash passwords work... I always emphasize that the passwords are NOT STORED ANYWHERE ! What I find much more distressing is how many systems use more complex systems to store passwords .
I could implement a reasonably good one-way hash password system in nearly any programming language in very few lines of code and have a very low risk of the user 's passwords being compromised .
But many systems still insist on keeping that password stored in a reversible format , even though it 's much more complex to implement securely.I HATE those web systems that send you your password in an email... that 's always nice of them to broadcast my password to the world like that .
A properly implemented system should n't even let them know my password ! I have spent hours of my life trying to explain to users why their password gets changed if I ever need to authenticate as them in one of our systems .
They hate it , but when I explain that it 's actually a good thing ( they know when someone has accessed their account ) , they usually love the idea of the one-way hash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good explanation of how one way hash passwords work... I always emphasize that the passwords are NOT STORED ANYWHERE!What I find much more distressing is how many systems use more complex systems to store passwords.
I could implement a reasonably good one-way hash password system in nearly any programming language in very few lines of code and have a very low risk of the user's passwords being compromised.
But many systems still insist on keeping that password stored in a reversible format, even though it's much more complex to implement securely.I HATE those web systems that send you your password in an email... that's always nice of them to broadcast my password to the world like that.
A properly implemented system shouldn't even let them know my password!I have spent hours of my life trying to explain to users why their password gets changed if I ever need to authenticate as them in one of our systems.
They hate it, but when I explain that it's actually a good thing (they know when someone has accessed their account), they usually love the idea of the one-way hash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234611</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1244314560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place? Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Some mathematical instructions are easy to execute, but are very hard or non-deterministic to reverse.  A simple example: take two (large) numbers x and y, and keep them secret.  Multiply them and call the result z.  Easy, right?  And it is also easy to check if any two numbers are equal to the secret x and y, by comparing their product against z (of course there might be more products that match z in this example).  However, if you only know the number z, it will be a <i>lot</i> harder to work out what the numbers x and y are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password , why ca n't that algorithm be " reversed " to produce the original password in the first place ?
Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions .
Some mathematical instructions are easy to execute , but are very hard or non-deterministic to reverse .
A simple example : take two ( large ) numbers x and y , and keep them secret .
Multiply them and call the result z. Easy , right ?
And it is also easy to check if any two numbers are equal to the secret x and y , by comparing their product against z ( of course there might be more products that match z in this example ) .
However , if you only know the number z , it will be a lot harder to work out what the numbers x and y are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place?
Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions.
Some mathematical instructions are easy to execute, but are very hard or non-deterministic to reverse.
A simple example: take two (large) numbers x and y, and keep them secret.
Multiply them and call the result z.  Easy, right?
And it is also easy to check if any two numbers are equal to the secret x and y, by comparing their product against z (of course there might be more products that match z in this example).
However, if you only know the number z, it will be a lot harder to work out what the numbers x and y are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28239505</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>gonz</author>
	<datestamp>1244316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere, someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements. People can't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password isn't stored there to begin with.</p></div><p>So you're saying that if your password was loosely related to a dictionary word, and if a hacker gained root access to that server, then you would be <i> <b>completely</b> </i> unconcerned about having used the same password on other servers?  You would sleep well at night, with complete confidence that the text spit out by "John the Ripper" is going to be some totally unrelated text string?</p><p>In your reply, please include the IP address of your server.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>-Gonz</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere , someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements .
People ca n't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password is n't stored there to begin with.So you 're saying that if your password was loosely related to a dictionary word , and if a hacker gained root access to that server , then you would be completely unconcerned about having used the same password on other servers ?
You would sleep well at night , with complete confidence that the text spit out by " John the Ripper " is going to be some totally unrelated text string ? In your reply , please include the IP address of your server .
; - ) -Gonz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere, someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements.
People can't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password isn't stored there to begin with.So you're saying that if your password was loosely related to a dictionary word, and if a hacker gained root access to that server, then you would be  completely  unconcerned about having used the same password on other servers?
You would sleep well at night, with complete confidence that the text spit out by "John the Ripper" is going to be some totally unrelated text string?In your reply, please include the IP address of your server.
;-)-Gonz
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28248263</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244452680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will he now be insisting that we call him "The Plague" and referring to his assistants as "hapless Techno-Weenies"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will he now be insisting that we call him " The Plague " and referring to his assistants as " hapless Techno-Weenies " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will he now be insisting that we call him "The Plague" and referring to his assistants as "hapless Techno-Weenies"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236537</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1244283540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well lets see</p><p>1 salting: a number is added into the mix to jig the results (and this may not be a known number for a particular setup)</p><p>2 the password function itself is designed to be slow and the encoder works one way (no decode)</p><p>3 anybody that is running with passwords in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/security/passwd  is a complete moron (hint shadow is the correct name of the file) <a href="http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-etcshadow-file/" title="cyberciti.biz">http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-etcshadow-file/</a> [cyberciti.biz]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well lets see1 salting : a number is added into the mix to jig the results ( and this may not be a known number for a particular setup ) 2 the password function itself is designed to be slow and the encoder works one way ( no decode ) 3 anybody that is running with passwords in the /etc/security/passwd is a complete moron ( hint shadow is the correct name of the file ) http : //www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-etcshadow-file/ [ cyberciti.biz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well lets see1 salting: a number is added into the mix to jig the results (and this may not be a known number for a particular setup)2 the password function itself is designed to be slow and the encoder works one way (no decode)3 anybody that is running with passwords in the /etc/security/passwd  is a complete moron (hint shadow is the correct name of the file) http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-etcshadow-file/ [cyberciti.biz]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</id>
	<title>DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244313240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either he resigns in disgust or becomes assimilated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either he resigns in disgust or becomes assimilated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either he resigns in disgust or becomes assimilated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240635</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're fooling yourself. He is the one who will be turned around (he has been already). Rebels only rebel up until the point that they are offered a place at the table, at which point, they join the other side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're fooling yourself .
He is the one who will be turned around ( he has been already ) .
Rebels only rebel up until the point that they are offered a place at the table , at which point , they join the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're fooling yourself.
He is the one who will be turned around (he has been already).
Rebels only rebel up until the point that they are offered a place at the table, at which point, they join the other side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238335</id>
	<title>Mystery Anoucement: Hacker Militia...</title>
	<author>kk49</author>
	<datestamp>1244300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the original 2nd amendment way, Every able-minded hacker is now in the hacker militia, it is now okay to hack computers in foreign countries...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the original 2nd amendment way , Every able-minded hacker is now in the hacker militia , it is now okay to hack computers in foreign countries... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the original 2nd amendment way, Every able-minded hacker is now in the hacker militia, it is now okay to hack computers in foreign countries... ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236253</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>ErikTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1244281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I think he'll be fine.</p><p>Just don't be surprised when all of a sudden "Hail to the Chief" gets replaced with "All your base are belong to us."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I think he 'll be fine.Just do n't be surprised when all of a sudden " Hail to the Chief " gets replaced with " All your base are belong to us .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I think he'll be fine.Just don't be surprised when all of a sudden "Hail to the Chief" gets replaced with "All your base are belong to us.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234481</id>
	<title>Good for the council</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244313480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is actually a great step forward.

Why not have some of the best hackers review our current practices?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a great step forward .
Why not have some of the best hackers review our current practices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a great step forward.
Why not have some of the best hackers review our current practices?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237355</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244291160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, you're absolutely right, because once he gets that key to the DHS lounge with the free soda machine, he's going to completely abandon all he's fought for and against...  sounds like parent is just jealous he didn't get nominated...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , you 're absolutely right , because once he gets that key to the DHS lounge with the free soda machine , he 's going to completely abandon all he 's fought for and against... sounds like parent is just jealous he did n't get nominated.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, you're absolutely right, because once he gets that key to the DHS lounge with the free soda machine, he's going to completely abandon all he's fought for and against...  sounds like parent is just jealous he didn't get nominated...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237483</id>
	<title>He's an FBI Informant</title>
	<author>liveammo</author>
	<datestamp>1244292540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course Jeff Moss was invited into the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, he has been organizing events for over ten years to collect information about hackers in the computer underground.  Anyone who goes to DEFCON or Black Hat is immediately "on the radar" of every three letter agency here and abroad.

He's an FBI stooge, always has been, always will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Jeff Moss was invited into the Homeland Security Advisory Committee , he has been organizing events for over ten years to collect information about hackers in the computer underground .
Anyone who goes to DEFCON or Black Hat is immediately " on the radar " of every three letter agency here and abroad .
He 's an FBI stooge , always has been , always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Jeff Moss was invited into the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, he has been organizing events for over ten years to collect information about hackers in the computer underground.
Anyone who goes to DEFCON or Black Hat is immediately "on the radar" of every three letter agency here and abroad.
He's an FBI stooge, always has been, always will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234825</id>
	<title>Narc Tangent sells out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I'll give the perspective here of a very small (yet dedicated) section of the hacker community.  I have retired from hacking, but the hacker community still interests me, and I feel a responsibility with some others in guiding it.</p><p>As far as myself, I was on H/P sub-boards of BBSs in the early/mid 1980s, and did use the Feature Group B (950-XXXX) codes they posted to phreak, but I put that aside because I did not begin to seriously hack (and phreak) until 1989, and I retired in 1996, the day I began working for an ISP.  I personally have met many members of LoD, MoD, BoW, l0ck and so forth, have gone to many cons and 2600 meetings, have gone on trashing runs, talked to them on "confs" (conference calls), on BBSs, IRC etc.</p><p>Perhaps I'll search for more original links later, but <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/15/security\_industrys\_hackerpimping\_slammed" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Gweeds speech</a> [theregister.co.uk] at H2K2 in July 2002 is what was really the clarion call of the white hat backlash.  That speech was great, and expressed what I felt for a long time but hadn't heard anyone else say.<br><a href="http://www.phiral.net/blackhatbloc/" title="phiral.net" rel="nofollow">This</a> [phiral.net] web page is dedicated to the white hat backlash as well.</p><p>Actually, the anti-whitehat movement in my mind has itself already split.  There are the older people like me, Gweeds and some others who primarily want to delineate this line between hacking and the security industry.  They are two separate things, in fact, they are against each other - the security community arrests and jails hackers.  The idea that there can be a grey hat who is between white hat and black hat is ridiculous, you are either a hacker, or you are working for the security industry and law enforcement.  I think even a lot of anti-hacker people would agree with us on that one.</p><p>Most of us are older, most of us don't hack any more, and the people in this movement or tendency that Gweeds became a spokesman for I have noticed are also in the anarchist movement.  After all, Gweeds talked about anarchism a lot, I have been involved in the anarchist movement, and I know others of our mindset (some who I feel have expressed sympathetic sentiments are in the cDc).</p><p>I myself more than most of this group are in a political plain at the cross-section of anarchism and Marxism.  So being one more of a dialectic bent, I think the progression of what has happened - people hacked until the mid 1990s, in the mid 1990s many hackers entered the security industry and the hacking movement died out to a large degree, then Gweeds made his speech in 2002 and the hacking movement is still moribund, but has some more self-awareness now anyhow.  The rise and fall of IT with the dot-coms caused a chain of reactions.  Perhaps the rise and fall of IT within FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) will have some reaction as well.</p><p>I think what is more important is I think the expression of the "hacker ethic" has always been bullshit.  Whether it was what the Mentor said, or that Phrack or 2600 talked about.  2600 has said things like "Companies should be glad we're hacking as we're showing them holes before the bad guys do" which sounds ridiculous to me from a hacker perspective, and I'm sure sounds ridiculous to law enforcement and companies being hacked.  Gweeds, and some of the people who picked up the torch of what he said have refined that.</p><p>I myself think another criticism has to be made, not just of the white hats, but of the crowd which I'll call the 4chan/Anonymous crowd.  I think what they're doing is a new development, is sort of in the spirit of hacking, but misses the boat in a few ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'll give the perspective here of a very small ( yet dedicated ) section of the hacker community .
I have retired from hacking , but the hacker community still interests me , and I feel a responsibility with some others in guiding it.As far as myself , I was on H/P sub-boards of BBSs in the early/mid 1980s , and did use the Feature Group B ( 950-XXXX ) codes they posted to phreak , but I put that aside because I did not begin to seriously hack ( and phreak ) until 1989 , and I retired in 1996 , the day I began working for an ISP .
I personally have met many members of LoD , MoD , BoW , l0ck and so forth , have gone to many cons and 2600 meetings , have gone on trashing runs , talked to them on " confs " ( conference calls ) , on BBSs , IRC etc.Perhaps I 'll search for more original links later , but Gweeds speech [ theregister.co.uk ] at H2K2 in July 2002 is what was really the clarion call of the white hat backlash .
That speech was great , and expressed what I felt for a long time but had n't heard anyone else say.This [ phiral.net ] web page is dedicated to the white hat backlash as well.Actually , the anti-whitehat movement in my mind has itself already split .
There are the older people like me , Gweeds and some others who primarily want to delineate this line between hacking and the security industry .
They are two separate things , in fact , they are against each other - the security community arrests and jails hackers .
The idea that there can be a grey hat who is between white hat and black hat is ridiculous , you are either a hacker , or you are working for the security industry and law enforcement .
I think even a lot of anti-hacker people would agree with us on that one.Most of us are older , most of us do n't hack any more , and the people in this movement or tendency that Gweeds became a spokesman for I have noticed are also in the anarchist movement .
After all , Gweeds talked about anarchism a lot , I have been involved in the anarchist movement , and I know others of our mindset ( some who I feel have expressed sympathetic sentiments are in the cDc ) .I myself more than most of this group are in a political plain at the cross-section of anarchism and Marxism .
So being one more of a dialectic bent , I think the progression of what has happened - people hacked until the mid 1990s , in the mid 1990s many hackers entered the security industry and the hacking movement died out to a large degree , then Gweeds made his speech in 2002 and the hacking movement is still moribund , but has some more self-awareness now anyhow .
The rise and fall of IT with the dot-coms caused a chain of reactions .
Perhaps the rise and fall of IT within FIRE ( Finance , Insurance and Real Estate ) will have some reaction as well.I think what is more important is I think the expression of the " hacker ethic " has always been bullshit .
Whether it was what the Mentor said , or that Phrack or 2600 talked about .
2600 has said things like " Companies should be glad we 're hacking as we 're showing them holes before the bad guys do " which sounds ridiculous to me from a hacker perspective , and I 'm sure sounds ridiculous to law enforcement and companies being hacked .
Gweeds , and some of the people who picked up the torch of what he said have refined that.I myself think another criticism has to be made , not just of the white hats , but of the crowd which I 'll call the 4chan/Anonymous crowd .
I think what they 're doing is a new development , is sort of in the spirit of hacking , but misses the boat in a few ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'll give the perspective here of a very small (yet dedicated) section of the hacker community.
I have retired from hacking, but the hacker community still interests me, and I feel a responsibility with some others in guiding it.As far as myself, I was on H/P sub-boards of BBSs in the early/mid 1980s, and did use the Feature Group B (950-XXXX) codes they posted to phreak, but I put that aside because I did not begin to seriously hack (and phreak) until 1989, and I retired in 1996, the day I began working for an ISP.
I personally have met many members of LoD, MoD, BoW, l0ck and so forth, have gone to many cons and 2600 meetings, have gone on trashing runs, talked to them on "confs" (conference calls), on BBSs, IRC etc.Perhaps I'll search for more original links later, but Gweeds speech [theregister.co.uk] at H2K2 in July 2002 is what was really the clarion call of the white hat backlash.
That speech was great, and expressed what I felt for a long time but hadn't heard anyone else say.This [phiral.net] web page is dedicated to the white hat backlash as well.Actually, the anti-whitehat movement in my mind has itself already split.
There are the older people like me, Gweeds and some others who primarily want to delineate this line between hacking and the security industry.
They are two separate things, in fact, they are against each other - the security community arrests and jails hackers.
The idea that there can be a grey hat who is between white hat and black hat is ridiculous, you are either a hacker, or you are working for the security industry and law enforcement.
I think even a lot of anti-hacker people would agree with us on that one.Most of us are older, most of us don't hack any more, and the people in this movement or tendency that Gweeds became a spokesman for I have noticed are also in the anarchist movement.
After all, Gweeds talked about anarchism a lot, I have been involved in the anarchist movement, and I know others of our mindset (some who I feel have expressed sympathetic sentiments are in the cDc).I myself more than most of this group are in a political plain at the cross-section of anarchism and Marxism.
So being one more of a dialectic bent, I think the progression of what has happened - people hacked until the mid 1990s, in the mid 1990s many hackers entered the security industry and the hacking movement died out to a large degree, then Gweeds made his speech in 2002 and the hacking movement is still moribund, but has some more self-awareness now anyhow.
The rise and fall of IT with the dot-coms caused a chain of reactions.
Perhaps the rise and fall of IT within FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) will have some reaction as well.I think what is more important is I think the expression of the "hacker ethic" has always been bullshit.
Whether it was what the Mentor said, or that Phrack or 2600 talked about.
2600 has said things like "Companies should be glad we're hacking as we're showing them holes before the bad guys do" which sounds ridiculous to me from a hacker perspective, and I'm sure sounds ridiculous to law enforcement and companies being hacked.
Gweeds, and some of the people who picked up the torch of what he said have refined that.I myself think another criticism has to be made, not just of the white hats, but of the crowd which I'll call the 4chan/Anonymous crowd.
I think what they're doing is a new development, is sort of in the spirit of hacking, but misses the boat in a few ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234793</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1244316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The password is not encrypted, it is cryptographically hashed (encrpytion is two-way, hashing is one-way). A hash function transforms an arbitrary length input into a fixed length output, so there is no inverse function in the mathematical sense: a single hash value has an infinite number of inputs corresponding to it. Finding a value that produces a given hash is extremely hard: a good hash function will not have any way of computing such a value more effective than brute force (e.g. you try all possible inputs until one of them given you the hash you're looking for).</p><p>As for reversing the algorithm: in essence, the generation of the password hash always uses a stateful generator, and this state is not preserved in the hash. When trying to reverse the hash, you must know not only the hash but also the state of the generator at the end of the algorithm, otherwise backtracking to the initial state of the generator defined in the hash function definition can take more than the age of the universe, even if you used all the computing power on earth to break this single password. Another mathematical idea that is frequently used is that if you have two very large prime numbers x and y, you can quickly compute their product z, but you can't easily find x and y if you only have z. Unless you have a quantum computer, which doesn't exist yet.</p><p>Real world analogy: it's nearly impossible to find two persons with the same fingerprints, but the fingerprints themselves don't contain any infromation about the name of the person. If you have a fingerprint and a person, you can easily identify if it the fingerprint belongs to the person, but if you only have the fingerprint, you need to check the fingerprints of all people to find a person that has the same fingerprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The password is not encrypted , it is cryptographically hashed ( encrpytion is two-way , hashing is one-way ) .
A hash function transforms an arbitrary length input into a fixed length output , so there is no inverse function in the mathematical sense : a single hash value has an infinite number of inputs corresponding to it .
Finding a value that produces a given hash is extremely hard : a good hash function will not have any way of computing such a value more effective than brute force ( e.g .
you try all possible inputs until one of them given you the hash you 're looking for ) .As for reversing the algorithm : in essence , the generation of the password hash always uses a stateful generator , and this state is not preserved in the hash .
When trying to reverse the hash , you must know not only the hash but also the state of the generator at the end of the algorithm , otherwise backtracking to the initial state of the generator defined in the hash function definition can take more than the age of the universe , even if you used all the computing power on earth to break this single password .
Another mathematical idea that is frequently used is that if you have two very large prime numbers x and y , you can quickly compute their product z , but you ca n't easily find x and y if you only have z. Unless you have a quantum computer , which does n't exist yet.Real world analogy : it 's nearly impossible to find two persons with the same fingerprints , but the fingerprints themselves do n't contain any infromation about the name of the person .
If you have a fingerprint and a person , you can easily identify if it the fingerprint belongs to the person , but if you only have the fingerprint , you need to check the fingerprints of all people to find a person that has the same fingerprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The password is not encrypted, it is cryptographically hashed (encrpytion is two-way, hashing is one-way).
A hash function transforms an arbitrary length input into a fixed length output, so there is no inverse function in the mathematical sense: a single hash value has an infinite number of inputs corresponding to it.
Finding a value that produces a given hash is extremely hard: a good hash function will not have any way of computing such a value more effective than brute force (e.g.
you try all possible inputs until one of them given you the hash you're looking for).As for reversing the algorithm: in essence, the generation of the password hash always uses a stateful generator, and this state is not preserved in the hash.
When trying to reverse the hash, you must know not only the hash but also the state of the generator at the end of the algorithm, otherwise backtracking to the initial state of the generator defined in the hash function definition can take more than the age of the universe, even if you used all the computing power on earth to break this single password.
Another mathematical idea that is frequently used is that if you have two very large prime numbers x and y, you can quickly compute their product z, but you can't easily find x and y if you only have z. Unless you have a quantum computer, which doesn't exist yet.Real world analogy: it's nearly impossible to find two persons with the same fingerprints, but the fingerprints themselves don't contain any infromation about the name of the person.
If you have a fingerprint and a person, you can easily identify if it the fingerprint belongs to the person, but if you only have the fingerprint, you need to check the fingerprints of all people to find a person that has the same fingerprint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238531</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244302800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity....  did it ever "come"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity.... did it ever " come " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity....  did it ever "come"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234697</id>
	<title>PR ploy maybe?</title>
	<author>zazenation</author>
	<datestamp>1244315160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think she just watched the 1993 SciFi movie "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes:<br>"Send a maniac to capture a maniac".</p><p>While I understand the gut PR logic, I fail to understand how it translates into anything but "We're thinking outside the box" political cover. I think Janet Napolitano is anxious to be seen looking open minded after the "Veterans are possible terrorists"  memorandum that leaked out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think she just watched the 1993 SciFi movie " Demolition Man " with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes : " Send a maniac to capture a maniac " .While I understand the gut PR logic , I fail to understand how it translates into anything but " We 're thinking outside the box " political cover .
I think Janet Napolitano is anxious to be seen looking open minded after the " Veterans are possible terrorists " memorandum that leaked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think she just watched the 1993 SciFi movie "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes:"Send a maniac to capture a maniac".While I understand the gut PR logic, I fail to understand how it translates into anything but "We're thinking outside the box" political cover.
I think Janet Napolitano is anxious to be seen looking open minded after the "Veterans are possible terrorists"  memorandum that leaked out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234647</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1244314800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well it's change. He's probably not one of them yet.<br><br>I doubt Obama can replace the entire council. So hope it works out well. Or it's back to "same old same old".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's change .
He 's probably not one of them yet.I doubt Obama can replace the entire council .
So hope it works out well .
Or it 's back to " same old same old " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's change.
He's probably not one of them yet.I doubt Obama can replace the entire council.
So hope it works out well.
Or it's back to "same old same old".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238493</id>
	<title>Grats DT</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1244302380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been at Defcon 1 and seen how far things have come, I have nothing but respect for DT and what he has done.  It's funny how times change.  To have gone from an environment where people were paranoid about "the Feds" even knowing who was attending the conference, to having the organizer of the conference working for the Feds, is a real change.  He has the contacts and the insider knowledge of what the threats are.  The government made a smart choice by hiring him.  Now, DT... since my tax dollars are going into your pocket, how about a free admission to the next con?

-Phax</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been at Defcon 1 and seen how far things have come , I have nothing but respect for DT and what he has done .
It 's funny how times change .
To have gone from an environment where people were paranoid about " the Feds " even knowing who was attending the conference , to having the organizer of the conference working for the Feds , is a real change .
He has the contacts and the insider knowledge of what the threats are .
The government made a smart choice by hiring him .
Now , DT... since my tax dollars are going into your pocket , how about a free admission to the next con ?
-Phax</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been at Defcon 1 and seen how far things have come, I have nothing but respect for DT and what he has done.
It's funny how times change.
To have gone from an environment where people were paranoid about "the Feds" even knowing who was attending the conference, to having the organizer of the conference working for the Feds, is a real change.
He has the contacts and the insider knowledge of what the threats are.
The government made a smart choice by hiring him.
Now, DT... since my tax dollars are going into your pocket, how about a free admission to the next con?
-Phax</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235021</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1244317500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place?</i></p><p>It has been. But it doesn't really do you any good. The actual password is lost. The reverse of a hash produces infinite solutions. (In the same way the reverse of modulus division produces infinite solutions).</p><p>But those solutions are all 'collisions' and they could all be used interchangeably with the original password. So getting any solution is almost as good as getting the original.</p><p><i>Even in open source systems, encrypted passwords are not easy to crack. Why?</i></p><p>Because pretty much all modern encryption is based on the idea that its VERY easy to multiply two stupidly large prime numbers to find an even stupidly larger number. Multiple two 1000 bit prime number numbers and get a 2000 bit non-prime as a result.</p><p>But it takes years upon years of processor time to take that stupidly larger number, and factor it back into the original stupidly large primes.</p><p><i>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</i></p><p>z = primex * primey;</p><p>suppose z = 377, how do you find the factors: 13 and 29?<br>Now, for encryption, z is thousands of digits instead of 3.</p><p>Algorithms that solve this exist, they just won't finish running until after you've died of old age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password , why ca n't that algorithm be " reversed " to produce the original password in the first place ? It has been .
But it does n't really do you any good .
The actual password is lost .
The reverse of a hash produces infinite solutions .
( In the same way the reverse of modulus division produces infinite solutions ) .But those solutions are all 'collisions ' and they could all be used interchangeably with the original password .
So getting any solution is almost as good as getting the original.Even in open source systems , encrypted passwords are not easy to crack .
Why ? Because pretty much all modern encryption is based on the idea that its VERY easy to multiply two stupidly large prime numbers to find an even stupidly larger number .
Multiple two 1000 bit prime number numbers and get a 2000 bit non-prime as a result.But it takes years upon years of processor time to take that stupidly larger number , and factor it back into the original stupidly large primes.Could a slashdotter post some " simple to understand code " that produces output I can not reverse engineer ? z = primex * primey ; suppose z = 377 , how do you find the factors : 13 and 29 ? Now , for encryption , z is thousands of digits instead of 3.Algorithms that solve this exist , they just wo n't finish running until after you 've died of old age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place?It has been.
But it doesn't really do you any good.
The actual password is lost.
The reverse of a hash produces infinite solutions.
(In the same way the reverse of modulus division produces infinite solutions).But those solutions are all 'collisions' and they could all be used interchangeably with the original password.
So getting any solution is almost as good as getting the original.Even in open source systems, encrypted passwords are not easy to crack.
Why?Because pretty much all modern encryption is based on the idea that its VERY easy to multiply two stupidly large prime numbers to find an even stupidly larger number.
Multiple two 1000 bit prime number numbers and get a 2000 bit non-prime as a result.But it takes years upon years of processor time to take that stupidly larger number, and factor it back into the original stupidly large primes.Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?z = primex * primey;suppose z = 377, how do you find the factors: 13 and 29?Now, for encryption, z is thousands of digits instead of 3.Algorithms that solve this exist, they just won't finish running until after you've died of old age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234699</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1244315220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bogaboga, I was under the impression that the passwd file generates hashed values not encrypted ones. Hash  algorithms are deterministic in nature so it is infeasible to reverse the hash. Any code I post generating a well-salted hash from a respectable algorithm would be out of your capacity to reverse engineer. A program like John the Ripper, or a rainbow attack would be computationaly hard to find a collision. <br> <br>Here are the rules for hashing: <br>Given M, easy to compute h=H(M)<br>
Given h, hard to compute M such that h=H(M) -- "one-way"<br>
Given M, hard to find M' (different from M) such that H(M)=H(M')<br>
(Not always satisfied) Hard to find M,M' such that H(M)=H(M') -- "collision resistant"<br>
Note that 4 implies 3 (i.e. if we could solve 3 we could solve 4), but not conversely. The strange thing about hash functions is that there are typically billions of collisions, or perhaps infinitely many (if the hash function really does take arbitrary-length input; most have some huge limit). But it is computationally hard to find a single one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bogaboga , I was under the impression that the passwd file generates hashed values not encrypted ones .
Hash algorithms are deterministic in nature so it is infeasible to reverse the hash .
Any code I post generating a well-salted hash from a respectable algorithm would be out of your capacity to reverse engineer .
A program like John the Ripper , or a rainbow attack would be computationaly hard to find a collision .
Here are the rules for hashing : Given M , easy to compute h = H ( M ) Given h , hard to compute M such that h = H ( M ) -- " one-way " Given M , hard to find M ' ( different from M ) such that H ( M ) = H ( M ' ) ( Not always satisfied ) Hard to find M,M ' such that H ( M ) = H ( M ' ) -- " collision resistant " Note that 4 implies 3 ( i.e .
if we could solve 3 we could solve 4 ) , but not conversely .
The strange thing about hash functions is that there are typically billions of collisions , or perhaps infinitely many ( if the hash function really does take arbitrary-length input ; most have some huge limit ) .
But it is computationally hard to find a single one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bogaboga, I was under the impression that the passwd file generates hashed values not encrypted ones.
Hash  algorithms are deterministic in nature so it is infeasible to reverse the hash.
Any code I post generating a well-salted hash from a respectable algorithm would be out of your capacity to reverse engineer.
A program like John the Ripper, or a rainbow attack would be computationaly hard to find a collision.
Here are the rules for hashing: Given M, easy to compute h=H(M)
Given h, hard to compute M such that h=H(M) -- "one-way"
Given M, hard to find M' (different from M) such that H(M)=H(M')
(Not always satisfied) Hard to find M,M' such that H(M)=H(M') -- "collision resistant"
Note that 4 implies 3 (i.e.
if we could solve 3 we could solve 4), but not conversely.
The strange thing about hash functions is that there are typically billions of collisions, or perhaps infinitely many (if the hash function really does take arbitrary-length input; most have some huge limit).
But it is computationally hard to find a single one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28259433</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>MasterK0re</author>
	<datestamp>1244469180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole issue is a hot potato. I've know Jeff forever and can personally vouch that he's done more for the hacking subculture than anyone I've ever known.

Over the years he's taken many hits for 'hackers', 'phreakers', and 'losers' than any of you will ever be privy to know.

DefCon has it's issues and Jeff's human and has his faults, but to all you haters who have nothing better to do than mindlessly criticize, take your jealousy and focus your energy on polishing your.. skills.

To the clueless haters - You wish you had such an opportunity. Unfortunately our subculture has become overrun with so much bullshit linenoise it's easy to understand why things are falling apart in this electronic world. The government doesn't have to take hackers down when such discord exists with the ranks.

You fray the fabric of a culture that used to be strong, proud and elite. Your weakness is your hate and ignorance.

Congratulations DT, who knows where this will lead to but maybe you'll be lucky enough to make a difference.

-K</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole issue is a hot potato .
I 've know Jeff forever and can personally vouch that he 's done more for the hacking subculture than anyone I 've ever known .
Over the years he 's taken many hits for 'hackers ' , 'phreakers ' , and 'losers ' than any of you will ever be privy to know .
DefCon has it 's issues and Jeff 's human and has his faults , but to all you haters who have nothing better to do than mindlessly criticize , take your jealousy and focus your energy on polishing your.. skills . To the clueless haters - You wish you had such an opportunity .
Unfortunately our subculture has become overrun with so much bullshit linenoise it 's easy to understand why things are falling apart in this electronic world .
The government does n't have to take hackers down when such discord exists with the ranks .
You fray the fabric of a culture that used to be strong , proud and elite .
Your weakness is your hate and ignorance .
Congratulations DT , who knows where this will lead to but maybe you 'll be lucky enough to make a difference .
-K</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole issue is a hot potato.
I've know Jeff forever and can personally vouch that he's done more for the hacking subculture than anyone I've ever known.
Over the years he's taken many hits for 'hackers', 'phreakers', and 'losers' than any of you will ever be privy to know.
DefCon has it's issues and Jeff's human and has his faults, but to all you haters who have nothing better to do than mindlessly criticize, take your jealousy and focus your energy on polishing your.. skills.

To the clueless haters - You wish you had such an opportunity.
Unfortunately our subculture has become overrun with so much bullshit linenoise it's easy to understand why things are falling apart in this electronic world.
The government doesn't have to take hackers down when such discord exists with the ranks.
You fray the fabric of a culture that used to be strong, proud and elite.
Your weakness is your hate and ignorance.
Congratulations DT, who knows where this will lead to but maybe you'll be lucky enough to make a difference.
-K</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28250301</id>
	<title>Re:Trivial Case is a good teaching example...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244472360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not *all* the information -- you can tell if x was 0 or not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not * all * the information -- you can tell if x was 0 or not .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not *all* the information -- you can tell if x was 0 or not.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234843</id>
	<title>"I miss crime"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spot the fed... (pointing to DT)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spot the fed... ( pointing to DT )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spot the fed... (pointing to DT)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235147</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pigs fly... haven't you heard Swine Flu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pigs fly... have n't you heard Swine Flu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pigs fly... haven't you heard Swine Flu?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235733</id>
	<title>Listen to (h)Ackbar</title>
	<author>FatalTourist</author>
	<datestamp>1244321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a trap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234865</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic\_hash\_function" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic\_hash\_function</a> [wikipedia.org]

Read that. It's hard to get the original password, because no one knows how to do the math backwards. It can be easy to change the password, just hash your new password &amp; copy the new hash over, replacing the old. Of course, if there's a secret salt that will fail, but you can probably discover the salt. All that requires physical access in most cases, BTW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic \ _hash \ _function [ wikipedia.org ] Read that .
It 's hard to get the original password , because no one knows how to do the math backwards .
It can be easy to change the password , just hash your new password &amp; copy the new hash over , replacing the old .
Of course , if there 's a secret salt that will fail , but you can probably discover the salt .
All that requires physical access in most cases , BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic\_hash\_function [wikipedia.org]

Read that.
It's hard to get the original password, because no one knows how to do the math backwards.
It can be easy to change the password, just hash your new password &amp; copy the new hash over, replacing the old.
Of course, if there's a secret salt that will fail, but you can probably discover the salt.
All that requires physical access in most cases, BTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234669</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>mail2345</author>
	<datestamp>1244314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I know, some data is lost in the process of hashing, which while preventing reversal, allows for collisions.
<br>
Meaning that even if you could reverse it, there are infinite possibilities for the answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I know , some data is lost in the process of hashing , which while preventing reversal , allows for collisions .
Meaning that even if you could reverse it , there are infinite possibilities for the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I know, some data is lost in the process of hashing, which while preventing reversal, allows for collisions.
Meaning that even if you could reverse it, there are infinite possibilities for the answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237395</id>
	<title>Spot the Fed!</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1244291520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's going to be a lot easier at the next Defcon.  Or, is he just going wear an "I am the fed" t-shirt for the whole conference?</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's going to be a lot easier at the next Defcon .
Or , is he just going wear an " I am the fed " t-shirt for the whole conference ? -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's going to be a lot easier at the next Defcon.
Or, is he just going wear an "I am the fed" t-shirt for the whole conference?-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235155</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>forgot\_my\_username</author>
	<datestamp>1244318220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</p></div><p> <tt>function f(int x) { return x/x; }</tt>
Find the original value of x, when given <tt>f(x) == 1</tt>. To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.</p></div><p>
OOhhhh!!! ohhh!!!  I know, I know!<br>
<br>
It is zero!!!<br>
<br>
hmmm.... maybe not!<br> <br>
Maybe it is 42!  <br> YES!  That is it!   42!<br>
<br>
My God!  You have done it!!   You have discovered the Question.<br>
Isn't reality supposed to be replaced by something far more complex now.<br>
<br>
Hmm... mayb#@<br>
<br>
<br>
this is a sig...
Emmanuel<br>
<a href="http://www.erefinancing.org/" title="erefinancing.org" rel="nofollow">refinancing</a> [erefinancing.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a slashdotter post some " simple to understand code " that produces output I can not reverse engineer ?
function f ( int x ) { return x/x ; } Find the original value of x , when given f ( x ) = = 1 .
To get you started , x is not 3853 , 178470 or -8956583566 .
OOhhhh ! ! ! ohhh ! ! !
I know , I know !
It is zero ! ! !
hmmm.... maybe not !
Maybe it is 42 !
YES ! That is it !
42 ! My God !
You have done it ! !
You have discovered the Question .
Is n't reality supposed to be replaced by something far more complex now .
Hmm... mayb # @ this is a sig.. . Emmanuel refinancing [ erefinancing.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?
function f(int x) { return x/x; }
Find the original value of x, when given f(x) == 1.
To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.
OOhhhh!!! ohhh!!!
I know, I know!
It is zero!!!
hmmm.... maybe not!
Maybe it is 42!
YES!  That is it!
42!

My God!
You have done it!!
You have discovered the Question.
Isn't reality supposed to be replaced by something far more complex now.
Hmm... mayb#@


this is a sig...
Emmanuel
refinancing [erefinancing.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234665</id>
	<title>Jeff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Jeff is a pretty cool, I met him once and he's not one of the arrogant hacker types who wear black lipstick and snort coke. A real down to earth geek you can talk to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Jeff is a pretty cool , I met him once and he 's not one of the arrogant hacker types who wear black lipstick and snort coke .
A real down to earth geek you can talk to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Jeff is a pretty cool, I met him once and he's not one of the arrogant hacker types who wear black lipstick and snort coke.
A real down to earth geek you can talk to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234677</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>Majik Sheff</author>
	<datestamp>1244314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first image I got was Neo being taken over by Agent Smith.  You'll like being me, Missster Anderson!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first image I got was Neo being taken over by Agent Smith .
You 'll like being me , Missster Anderson !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first image I got was Neo being taken over by Agent Smith.
You'll like being me, Missster Anderson!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236227</id>
	<title>Trivial Case is a good teaching example...</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1244281320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>function f(int x) { return x/x; }</tt><br>Find the original value of x, when given f(x) == 1. To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.</p></div><p>This is actually, in a funny kind of way, a good illustration of an aspect of hash functions.  In a non-reversible hash function, a certain amount of information gets destroyed.  The above algorithm is a trivial example in which all information gets destroyed, and thus every single number is a collision.</p><p>Part of what makes a good hash function is throwing away just enough information to make it irreversible, but preserving enough to make it meaningful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>function f ( int x ) { return x/x ; } Find the original value of x , when given f ( x ) = = 1 .
To get you started , x is not 3853 , 178470 or -8956583566.This is actually , in a funny kind of way , a good illustration of an aspect of hash functions .
In a non-reversible hash function , a certain amount of information gets destroyed .
The above algorithm is a trivial example in which all information gets destroyed , and thus every single number is a collision.Part of what makes a good hash function is throwing away just enough information to make it irreversible , but preserving enough to make it meaningful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> function f(int x) { return x/x; }Find the original value of x, when given f(x) == 1.
To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.This is actually, in a funny kind of way, a good illustration of an aspect of hash functions.
In a non-reversible hash function, a certain amount of information gets destroyed.
The above algorithm is a trivial example in which all information gets destroyed, and thus every single number is a collision.Part of what makes a good hash function is throwing away just enough information to make it irreversible, but preserving enough to make it meaningful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235667</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244321040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</i></p><p>While I *love* the first respondent's answer, and giggled like an idiot when I read it, perhaps this will be more a more useful example for understanding how it works.</p><p>The modulus operator in arithmetic returns the remainder after integer division. It is commonly noted "x \% y", "x mod y", "mod( x, y )", or similar.</p><p>So:<br>3 mod 2 = 1<br>4 mod 3 = 1<br>4 mod 2 = 0<br>5 mod 2 = 1<br>5 mod 3 = 2<br>5 mod 4 = 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Now, suppose a password structure "x:y" -- you are required to enter your password as two digits, separated by a colon (not normal, but just suppose).</p><p>You could enter, as your password, "4:3", and the system could store as your password hash "1" -- the result of "4 mod 3". Then, when you attempt to log in next time, if you submit "4:3", the system would take the modulus and check the result, "1", against its internal table of password hashes and allow you in.</p><p>Now, suppose you get the table of hashes, and see:<br>joeSmith: 1</p><p>joeSmith has the password hash "1". Is his actual password "3:2", "4:3", "5:2", or "5:4"? Since the modulus of all those pairs is "1", the correct answer cannot be determined from the output alone. Modulus is what is called a "non-reversible function." The output of the modulus function contains less information than the input, so it cannot be reversed.</p><p>In this example it is trivial, however, to generate another password combination that results in the same hash. For example, "6:5" also equates to the hash "1". This is called a <i>collision</i> between "6:5" and "4:3". The attacker does not have to know joeSmith's actual password, as long as he can supply input that results in the correct hash. That leads to the next step in identity verification systems: ensuring that it is not possible for a reasonably funded attacker to forge a document which collides with the actual document (or password in this case, which is a special kind of document).</p><p>That is a much harder topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a slashdotter post some " simple to understand code " that produces output I can not reverse engineer ? While I * love * the first respondent 's answer , and giggled like an idiot when I read it , perhaps this will be more a more useful example for understanding how it works.The modulus operator in arithmetic returns the remainder after integer division .
It is commonly noted " x \ % y " , " x mod y " , " mod ( x , y ) " , or similar.So : 3 mod 2 = 14 mod 3 = 14 mod 2 = 05 mod 2 = 15 mod 3 = 25 mod 4 = 1 ...Now , suppose a password structure " x : y " -- you are required to enter your password as two digits , separated by a colon ( not normal , but just suppose ) .You could enter , as your password , " 4 : 3 " , and the system could store as your password hash " 1 " -- the result of " 4 mod 3 " .
Then , when you attempt to log in next time , if you submit " 4 : 3 " , the system would take the modulus and check the result , " 1 " , against its internal table of password hashes and allow you in.Now , suppose you get the table of hashes , and see : joeSmith : 1joeSmith has the password hash " 1 " .
Is his actual password " 3 : 2 " , " 4 : 3 " , " 5 : 2 " , or " 5 : 4 " ?
Since the modulus of all those pairs is " 1 " , the correct answer can not be determined from the output alone .
Modulus is what is called a " non-reversible function .
" The output of the modulus function contains less information than the input , so it can not be reversed.In this example it is trivial , however , to generate another password combination that results in the same hash .
For example , " 6 : 5 " also equates to the hash " 1 " .
This is called a collision between " 6 : 5 " and " 4 : 3 " .
The attacker does not have to know joeSmith 's actual password , as long as he can supply input that results in the correct hash .
That leads to the next step in identity verification systems : ensuring that it is not possible for a reasonably funded attacker to forge a document which collides with the actual document ( or password in this case , which is a special kind of document ) .That is a much harder topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?While I *love* the first respondent's answer, and giggled like an idiot when I read it, perhaps this will be more a more useful example for understanding how it works.The modulus operator in arithmetic returns the remainder after integer division.
It is commonly noted "x \% y", "x mod y", "mod( x, y )", or similar.So:3 mod 2 = 14 mod 3 = 14 mod 2 = 05 mod 2 = 15 mod 3 = 25 mod 4 = 1 ...Now, suppose a password structure "x:y" -- you are required to enter your password as two digits, separated by a colon (not normal, but just suppose).You could enter, as your password, "4:3", and the system could store as your password hash "1" -- the result of "4 mod 3".
Then, when you attempt to log in next time, if you submit "4:3", the system would take the modulus and check the result, "1", against its internal table of password hashes and allow you in.Now, suppose you get the table of hashes, and see:joeSmith: 1joeSmith has the password hash "1".
Is his actual password "3:2", "4:3", "5:2", or "5:4"?
Since the modulus of all those pairs is "1", the correct answer cannot be determined from the output alone.
Modulus is what is called a "non-reversible function.
" The output of the modulus function contains less information than the input, so it cannot be reversed.In this example it is trivial, however, to generate another password combination that results in the same hash.
For example, "6:5" also equates to the hash "1".
This is called a collision between "6:5" and "4:3".
The attacker does not have to know joeSmith's actual password, as long as he can supply input that results in the correct hash.
That leads to the next step in identity verification systems: ensuring that it is not possible for a reasonably funded attacker to forge a document which collides with the actual document (or password in this case, which is a special kind of document).That is a much harder topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240333</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Walles</author>
	<datestamp>1244376180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The encryption is a one-way street.  One (simple, understandable and entirely useless for security) example of such an "encryption" function would be to simply count the letters typed.</p><p>If somebody's password is "foo", it would be stored as "3".  Given "3", it's impossible to tell that the password was "foo".</p><p>When I want to log in, I type "foo", the login program converts what I typed into "3", and compares that value to what it has stored.  Also "3".  Access granted.</p><p>If I had typed "fluff", that would have been converted to "5", and access would have been denied.</p><p>Obviously, with this scheme, I could just as well have typed "pig", and that would have granted me access as well.  But Unix doesn't simply count letters, and collisions like this are unlikely. The function used is also such that coming up with something yielding a given hash (the "3" in the above example) is really hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The encryption is a one-way street .
One ( simple , understandable and entirely useless for security ) example of such an " encryption " function would be to simply count the letters typed.If somebody 's password is " foo " , it would be stored as " 3 " .
Given " 3 " , it 's impossible to tell that the password was " foo " .When I want to log in , I type " foo " , the login program converts what I typed into " 3 " , and compares that value to what it has stored .
Also " 3 " .
Access granted.If I had typed " fluff " , that would have been converted to " 5 " , and access would have been denied.Obviously , with this scheme , I could just as well have typed " pig " , and that would have granted me access as well .
But Unix does n't simply count letters , and collisions like this are unlikely .
The function used is also such that coming up with something yielding a given hash ( the " 3 " in the above example ) is really hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The encryption is a one-way street.
One (simple, understandable and entirely useless for security) example of such an "encryption" function would be to simply count the letters typed.If somebody's password is "foo", it would be stored as "3".
Given "3", it's impossible to tell that the password was "foo".When I want to log in, I type "foo", the login program converts what I typed into "3", and compares that value to what it has stored.
Also "3".
Access granted.If I had typed "fluff", that would have been converted to "5", and access would have been denied.Obviously, with this scheme, I could just as well have typed "pig", and that would have granted me access as well.
But Unix doesn't simply count letters, and collisions like this are unlikely.
The function used is also such that coming up with something yielding a given hash (the "3" in the above example) is really hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234667</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>telchine</author>
	<datestamp>1244314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a poacher turned gamekeeper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a poacher turned gamekeeper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a poacher turned gamekeeper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1244313900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's better than hackers not having any voice in government.  I commend him.  If he is able to turn around even one asinine governmental security policy, it's a step forward at least.  Who knows?  Maybe the US government will come to recognize us as the valuable resource we are because of our intimate knowledge of the systems that make up the modern world.  Maybe hell will freeze over, pigs will fly, and the cows will come home.  Well we can hope anyway!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better than hackers not having any voice in government .
I commend him .
If he is able to turn around even one asinine governmental security policy , it 's a step forward at least .
Who knows ?
Maybe the US government will come to recognize us as the valuable resource we are because of our intimate knowledge of the systems that make up the modern world .
Maybe hell will freeze over , pigs will fly , and the cows will come home .
Well we can hope anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better than hackers not having any voice in government.
I commend him.
If he is able to turn around even one asinine governmental security policy, it's a step forward at least.
Who knows?
Maybe the US government will come to recognize us as the valuable resource we are because of our intimate knowledge of the systems that make up the modern world.
Maybe hell will freeze over, pigs will fly, and the cows will come home.
Well we can hope anyway!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235275</id>
	<title>I remember him</title>
	<author>British</author>
	<datestamp>1244318820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many moons ago, after a 2600 meeting, a bunch of us converged at a coffee shop. Dark Tangent &amp; his friends were there. He had a laptop with a webcam attached to it(supposedly recording). Yet he raised a stink when someone else tried to take a picture of him. Do as I say, not as I do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many moons ago , after a 2600 meeting , a bunch of us converged at a coffee shop .
Dark Tangent &amp; his friends were there .
He had a laptop with a webcam attached to it ( supposedly recording ) .
Yet he raised a stink when someone else tried to take a picture of him .
Do as I say , not as I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many moons ago, after a 2600 meeting, a bunch of us converged at a coffee shop.
Dark Tangent &amp; his friends were there.
He had a laptop with a webcam attached to it(supposedly recording).
Yet he raised a stink when someone else tried to take a picture of him.
Do as I say, not as I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234893</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>fwice</author>
	<datestamp>1244316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way\_function" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way\_function</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way \ _function [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way\_function [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234747</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1244315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? Discrete mathematics, my friend, and in particular, modular arithmetic. (You know, from fourth grade, when you'd do 11 / 3 and get "3 remainder 2" - the 'modulo' operation just gives you the 2.) Now suppose you have an algorithm:<tt> <br>
a = x \% 731<br>
b = x \% 129<br>
</tt>
Now take a number: say, x = 10,000. Easy to compute: a = 497. b = 67. Very easy to calculate. But, working backwards from a and b alone, can you determine x? Suppose a = 616 and b = 100; can you tell me what my number is? It's not quite that easy! You'll need to do a lot more math. Not too much, in this case, as this is a ridiculously simple code and the numbers are small, but a lot more than a simple integer-division-and-remainder operation.
</p><p>
That's not an encrypted message. (Public-key cryptography is related but different.) That's a simple one-way cryptographic hash: a secret number (your password) goes in, and a mysterious hash-value (a and b) comes out, and there's no easy way to map it back. But if you give me the password, it's easy to check that it's right. That hash value is what's in your shadow password file. Except it uses MD5 or SHA or whatever-the-latest-hotness-is.</p><p>
Now, granted, there's few enough passwords that you can check them all, given enough time. (You might even precompute them all, which is why you add a little random 'salt' to each password that makes them all different. In the example above, the 'salt' could be 'add 12345 to X before hashing it'. You can store the salt next to the encrypted password - you'll need it to check the password. It only protects you from the guy who calculated all the passwords adding +12344 each time - his "rainbow table" of passwords and hashes is now useless.). That's why the shadow-password file isn't usually broadcasted to the world. You try to keep it reasonably secret: not world-readable, certainly not exposed to the Internet. But it's a whole lot better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Discrete mathematics , my friend , and in particular , modular arithmetic .
( You know , from fourth grade , when you 'd do 11 / 3 and get " 3 remainder 2 " - the 'modulo ' operation just gives you the 2 .
) Now suppose you have an algorithm : a = x \ % 731 b = x \ % 129 Now take a number : say , x = 10,000 .
Easy to compute : a = 497. b = 67 .
Very easy to calculate .
But , working backwards from a and b alone , can you determine x ?
Suppose a = 616 and b = 100 ; can you tell me what my number is ?
It 's not quite that easy !
You 'll need to do a lot more math .
Not too much , in this case , as this is a ridiculously simple code and the numbers are small , but a lot more than a simple integer-division-and-remainder operation .
That 's not an encrypted message .
( Public-key cryptography is related but different .
) That 's a simple one-way cryptographic hash : a secret number ( your password ) goes in , and a mysterious hash-value ( a and b ) comes out , and there 's no easy way to map it back .
But if you give me the password , it 's easy to check that it 's right .
That hash value is what 's in your shadow password file .
Except it uses MD5 or SHA or whatever-the-latest-hotness-is .
Now , granted , there 's few enough passwords that you can check them all , given enough time .
( You might even precompute them all , which is why you add a little random 'salt ' to each password that makes them all different .
In the example above , the 'salt ' could be 'add 12345 to X before hashing it' .
You can store the salt next to the encrypted password - you 'll need it to check the password .
It only protects you from the guy who calculated all the passwords adding + 12344 each time - his " rainbow table " of passwords and hashes is now useless. ) .
That 's why the shadow-password file is n't usually broadcasted to the world .
You try to keep it reasonably secret : not world-readable , certainly not exposed to the Internet .
But it 's a whole lot better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Discrete mathematics, my friend, and in particular, modular arithmetic.
(You know, from fourth grade, when you'd do 11 / 3 and get "3 remainder 2" - the 'modulo' operation just gives you the 2.
) Now suppose you have an algorithm: 
a = x \% 731
b = x \% 129

Now take a number: say, x = 10,000.
Easy to compute: a = 497. b = 67.
Very easy to calculate.
But, working backwards from a and b alone, can you determine x?
Suppose a = 616 and b = 100; can you tell me what my number is?
It's not quite that easy!
You'll need to do a lot more math.
Not too much, in this case, as this is a ridiculously simple code and the numbers are small, but a lot more than a simple integer-division-and-remainder operation.
That's not an encrypted message.
(Public-key cryptography is related but different.
) That's a simple one-way cryptographic hash: a secret number (your password) goes in, and a mysterious hash-value (a and b) comes out, and there's no easy way to map it back.
But if you give me the password, it's easy to check that it's right.
That hash value is what's in your shadow password file.
Except it uses MD5 or SHA or whatever-the-latest-hotness-is.
Now, granted, there's few enough passwords that you can check them all, given enough time.
(You might even precompute them all, which is why you add a little random 'salt' to each password that makes them all different.
In the example above, the 'salt' could be 'add 12345 to X before hashing it'.
You can store the salt next to the encrypted password - you'll need it to check the password.
It only protects you from the guy who calculated all the passwords adding +12344 each time - his "rainbow table" of passwords and hashes is now useless.).
That's why the shadow-password file isn't usually broadcasted to the world.
You try to keep it reasonably secret: not world-readable, certainly not exposed to the Internet.
But it's a whole lot better than nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497</id>
	<title>Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1244313540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. I have no doubt that Jeff has the chops and the "perspective" that has definitely been "missing". I watched the eyes of Richard Clarke and his entourage glaze over at a "town hall" meeting with the "President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board" (or whatever they called it then) in Portland about 8 or 9 years ago, as some very smart security folks told them what was coming and what needed to be done.  Honestly, I don't know if they just couldn't grasp the issues or if they were more interested in political play, but the message was quite plain;  "the government" was going to be no help in securing things. Political inertia being what it is, I doubt that much as changed, the current administration's well-meaning efforts notwithstanding. Jeff is in for a frustrating ride, I fear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
I have no doubt that Jeff has the chops and the " perspective " that has definitely been " missing " .
I watched the eyes of Richard Clarke and his entourage glaze over at a " town hall " meeting with the " President 's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board " ( or whatever they called it then ) in Portland about 8 or 9 years ago , as some very smart security folks told them what was coming and what needed to be done .
Honestly , I do n't know if they just could n't grasp the issues or if they were more interested in political play , but the message was quite plain ; " the government " was going to be no help in securing things .
Political inertia being what it is , I doubt that much as changed , the current administration 's well-meaning efforts notwithstanding .
Jeff is in for a frustrating ride , I fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
I have no doubt that Jeff has the chops and the "perspective" that has definitely been "missing".
I watched the eyes of Richard Clarke and his entourage glaze over at a "town hall" meeting with the "President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board" (or whatever they called it then) in Portland about 8 or 9 years ago, as some very smart security folks told them what was coming and what needed to be done.
Honestly, I don't know if they just couldn't grasp the issues or if they were more interested in political play, but the message was quite plain;  "the government" was going to be no help in securing things.
Political inertia being what it is, I doubt that much as changed, the current administration's well-meaning efforts notwithstanding.
Jeff is in for a frustrating ride, I fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235591</id>
	<title>Mitnick and Lamo think otherwise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244320560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kevin Mitnick and Adrian Lamo do not seem to like the idea of Moss getting the nod.

Mitnick prefers Bruce Schneier while Lamo believes Moss is a suit, "the reality is he's as corporate as hiring someone out of Microsoft."
<br> <br>
I wonder what the reaction in the tech community would have been had the 2 above gotten the call instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kevin Mitnick and Adrian Lamo do not seem to like the idea of Moss getting the nod .
Mitnick prefers Bruce Schneier while Lamo believes Moss is a suit , " the reality is he 's as corporate as hiring someone out of Microsoft .
" I wonder what the reaction in the tech community would have been had the 2 above gotten the call instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kevin Mitnick and Adrian Lamo do not seem to like the idea of Moss getting the nod.
Mitnick prefers Bruce Schneier while Lamo believes Moss is a suit, "the reality is he's as corporate as hiring someone out of Microsoft.
"
 
I wonder what the reaction in the tech community would have been had the 2 above gotten the call instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234705</id>
	<title>Re:More change for the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244315220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful what you wish for -- it seems Germany had an inspiring, charismatic, popular leader a half-century ago and we saw how that worked out.</p><p>Change doesn't always mean improvement or even progress. Changing from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist territory run by a dictator (complete with a dozen "czars") is hardly what freedom-minded Americans had in mind. We are now teetering on the edge of financial ruin, committing to an unprecedented level of debt that makes economic collapse and/or hyperinflation a near certainty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful what you wish for -- it seems Germany had an inspiring , charismatic , popular leader a half-century ago and we saw how that worked out.Change does n't always mean improvement or even progress .
Changing from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist territory run by a dictator ( complete with a dozen " czars " ) is hardly what freedom-minded Americans had in mind .
We are now teetering on the edge of financial ruin , committing to an unprecedented level of debt that makes economic collapse and/or hyperinflation a near certainty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful what you wish for -- it seems Germany had an inspiring, charismatic, popular leader a half-century ago and we saw how that worked out.Change doesn't always mean improvement or even progress.
Changing from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist territory run by a dictator (complete with a dozen "czars") is hardly what freedom-minded Americans had in mind.
We are now teetering on the edge of financial ruin, committing to an unprecedented level of debt that makes economic collapse and/or hyperinflation a near certainty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234719</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244315460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He may employ a similar tactic to the one I use when I have to deal with people above me in political clout on issues of a technical nature<br>Rather than play their game, I simply produce a highly condensed set of the major risks that would be caused if the activity I recommend does not take place, then wander round to whoever it is that's trying to hold it all up/derail it, and get them to sign at the bottom of the page (has to fit on one side of paper) saying they agree that the risk is all on their own head and that they accept it entirely be not performing the activity.<br>You then leave with a signature, or the support for the activity.  You'd be surprised by how many people don't even try to understand the matter until their head is on the block for it.  The pen is truly mightier than the sword sometimes.<br>If they don't sign, they lose a lot of respect for trying to dodge the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He may employ a similar tactic to the one I use when I have to deal with people above me in political clout on issues of a technical natureRather than play their game , I simply produce a highly condensed set of the major risks that would be caused if the activity I recommend does not take place , then wander round to whoever it is that 's trying to hold it all up/derail it , and get them to sign at the bottom of the page ( has to fit on one side of paper ) saying they agree that the risk is all on their own head and that they accept it entirely be not performing the activity.You then leave with a signature , or the support for the activity .
You 'd be surprised by how many people do n't even try to understand the matter until their head is on the block for it .
The pen is truly mightier than the sword sometimes.If they do n't sign , they lose a lot of respect for trying to dodge the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may employ a similar tactic to the one I use when I have to deal with people above me in political clout on issues of a technical natureRather than play their game, I simply produce a highly condensed set of the major risks that would be caused if the activity I recommend does not take place, then wander round to whoever it is that's trying to hold it all up/derail it, and get them to sign at the bottom of the page (has to fit on one side of paper) saying they agree that the risk is all on their own head and that they accept it entirely be not performing the activity.You then leave with a signature, or the support for the activity.
You'd be surprised by how many people don't even try to understand the matter until their head is on the block for it.
The pen is truly mightier than the sword sometimes.If they don't sign, they lose a lot of respect for trying to dodge the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238569</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>P0ltergeist333</author>
	<datestamp>1244303400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF what you say is true, his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation, and even included several action plans, as this 2001 memo clearly documents: <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke\%20memo.pdf" title="gwu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke\%20memo.pdf</a> [gwu.edu]</p><p>That very memo (one of many) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks' said.</p><p>Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations, the Executive branch, whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action, not only did not put any of the plans into motion, or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact, even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama, the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.</p><p>Anyway, as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems. Yes, he is up against bureaucracy, the party of no (Republicants), and the back stabbing Democratic party, but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent, wise, and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF what you say is true , his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation , and even included several action plans , as this 2001 memo clearly documents : http : //www.gwu.edu/ ~ nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke \ % 20memo.pdf [ gwu.edu ] That very memo ( one of many ) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks ' said.Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations , the Executive branch , whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action , not only did not put any of the plans into motion , or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact , even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama , the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS .
Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.Anyway , as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems .
Yes , he is up against bureaucracy , the party of no ( Republicants ) , and the back stabbing Democratic party , but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent , wise , and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF what you say is true, his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation, and even included several action plans, as this 2001 memo clearly documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke\%20memo.pdf [gwu.edu]That very memo (one of many) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks' said.Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations, the Executive branch, whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action, not only did not put any of the plans into motion, or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact, even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama, the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.Anyway, as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems.
Yes, he is up against bureaucracy, the party of no (Republicants), and the back stabbing Democratic party, but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent, wise, and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28272633</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that, Jeff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244547540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeff you will do your best to help and i know you will do great. At most you can't screw them up any more than that are But you can  just wake them up as to who is doing what and why and to show the real problems.</p><p>CC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeff you will do your best to help and i know you will do great .
At most you ca n't screw them up any more than that are But you can just wake them up as to who is doing what and why and to show the real problems.CC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeff you will do your best to help and i know you will do great.
At most you can't screw them up any more than that are But you can  just wake them up as to who is doing what and why and to show the real problems.CC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236397</id>
	<title>Re:More change for the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244282520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second that.  The UK is scraping the bottom of the political barrel right now, and what they're finding is not pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second that .
The UK is scraping the bottom of the political barrel right now , and what they 're finding is not pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second that.
The UK is scraping the bottom of the political barrel right now, and what they're finding is not pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238223</id>
	<title>An oxymoron</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1244299320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it an oxymoron: "hacker" and "Homeland Security Advisory Council" in one sentence.
How about : A well known criminal John Doe joined the police force

<br> <br> <a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it an oxymoron : " hacker " and " Homeland Security Advisory Council " in one sentence .
How about : A well known criminal John Doe joined the police force OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it an oxymoron: "hacker" and "Homeland Security Advisory Council" in one sentence.
How about : A well known criminal John Doe joined the police force

  OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234619</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244314620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LARGE PRIME NUMBER TIMES LARGE PRIME NUMBER.   HERE IS HUMONGULOUS NUMBER WITH 2 PRIME FACTORS.  GOOD LUCK.</p><p>(I could be wrong but I'm just a glory hound.)</p><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.<br>That's the Point, bitch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LARGE PRIME NUMBER TIMES LARGE PRIME NUMBER .
HERE IS HUMONGULOUS NUMBER WITH 2 PRIME FACTORS .
GOOD LUCK .
( I could be wrong but I 'm just a glory hound .
) Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.That 's the Point , bitch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LARGE PRIME NUMBER TIMES LARGE PRIME NUMBER.
HERE IS HUMONGULOUS NUMBER WITH 2 PRIME FACTORS.
GOOD LUCK.
(I could be wrong but I'm just a glory hound.
)Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.That's the Point, bitch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28250123</id>
	<title>Obama is on the road to success</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1244471220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I applaud Obama, he has the right mind frame for getting cyber threats under wraps.<br>Fight fire with fire....so get a hacker on board, to level the playing field.<br>(Just make sure to always keep him either so terrified of not cooperating by suggesting his family might be on grave danger because he is now consorting with the gov. that they need supervision, and they will provide it just as long as he keeps on the up and up...<br>which to me is not always the best, or keep him always interested in doing more and giving incentives he has to work for or towards)</p><p>He wants his own team, then let him choose it (like a cyber commando team leader), then allow them to have incentives too,<br>however, you would need 2 teams, both of which are supposed to think the other is rogue ops, and might turn , so we need to keep them supervised. Also not too much of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, because you could go over board with impeding progress....but in the end...a good move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I applaud Obama , he has the right mind frame for getting cyber threats under wraps.Fight fire with fire....so get a hacker on board , to level the playing field .
( Just make sure to always keep him either so terrified of not cooperating by suggesting his family might be on grave danger because he is now consorting with the gov .
that they need supervision , and they will provide it just as long as he keeps on the up and up...which to me is not always the best , or keep him always interested in doing more and giving incentives he has to work for or towards ) He wants his own team , then let him choose it ( like a cyber commando team leader ) , then allow them to have incentives too,however , you would need 2 teams , both of which are supposed to think the other is rogue ops , and might turn , so we need to keep them supervised .
Also not too much of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing , because you could go over board with impeding progress....but in the end...a good move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applaud Obama, he has the right mind frame for getting cyber threats under wraps.Fight fire with fire....so get a hacker on board, to level the playing field.
(Just make sure to always keep him either so terrified of not cooperating by suggesting his family might be on grave danger because he is now consorting with the gov.
that they need supervision, and they will provide it just as long as he keeps on the up and up...which to me is not always the best, or keep him always interested in doing more and giving incentives he has to work for or towards)He wants his own team, then let him choose it (like a cyber commando team leader), then allow them to have incentives too,however, you would need 2 teams, both of which are supposed to think the other is rogue ops, and might turn , so we need to keep them supervised.
Also not too much of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, because you could go over board with impeding progress....but in the end...a good move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235531</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>zx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1244320200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>f(0);

Lameness filter is lame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>f ( 0 ) ; Lameness filter is lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>f(0);

Lameness filter is lame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235357</id>
	<title>Holy Crap!</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This almost makes me believe that the government is serious about cyber-security.</p><p>Now, next, add a Constitutional Rights specialist from the EFF or ACLU and I might have an honest-to-goodness heart attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This almost makes me believe that the government is serious about cyber-security.Now , next , add a Constitutional Rights specialist from the EFF or ACLU and I might have an honest-to-goodness heart attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This almost makes me believe that the government is serious about cyber-security.Now, next, add a Constitutional Rights specialist from the EFF or ACLU and I might have an honest-to-goodness heart attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234609</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244314500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no pro, but I believe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic\_salt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Salting</a> [wikipedia.org] is used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no pro , but I believe that Salting [ wikipedia.org ] is used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no pro, but I believe that Salting [wikipedia.org] is used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471</id>
	<title>More change for the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244313360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Obama chap keeps making some inspired decisions - we could do with someone like him  over here (UK) to bring a bit of change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Obama chap keeps making some inspired decisions - we could do with someone like him over here ( UK ) to bring a bit of change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Obama chap keeps making some inspired decisions - we could do with someone like him  over here (UK) to bring a bit of change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28248151</id>
	<title>His recent keynote</title>
	<author>Rurik</author>
	<datestamp>1244451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In January, Moss gave a keynote presentation at the <a href="http://www.dodcybercrime.com/" title="dodcybercrime.com">DoD Cyber Crime Conference</a> [dodcybercrime.com].  I wonder if his presence there helped put him into this new position. It really made him public to the government there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>In January , Moss gave a keynote presentation at the DoD Cyber Crime Conference [ dodcybercrime.com ] .
I wonder if his presence there helped put him into this new position .
It really made him public to the government there : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In January, Moss gave a keynote presentation at the DoD Cyber Crime Conference [dodcybercrime.com].
I wonder if his presence there helped put him into this new position.
It really made him public to the government there :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244314860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</p></div><p> <tt>function f(int x) { return x/x; }</tt><br>Find the original value of x, when given <tt>f(x) == 1</tt>. To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a slashdotter post some " simple to understand code " that produces output I can not reverse engineer ?
function f ( int x ) { return x/x ; } Find the original value of x , when given f ( x ) = = 1 .
To get you started , x is not 3853 , 178470 or -8956583566 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?
function f(int x) { return x/x; }Find the original value of x, when given f(x) == 1.
To get you started, x is not 3853, 178470 or -8956583566.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240341</id>
	<title>Set a Thief to catch a Thief</title>
	<author>eyendall</author>
	<datestamp>1244376540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</id>
	<title>Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have used Linux and Unix systems for over a decade now. What boggles my mind me is why a [Linux/Unix] "encrypted password" stored in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/security/passwd cannot easily be "reverse engineered."</p><p>If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place? Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions.</p><p>Even in open source systems, encrypted passwords are not easy to crack. Why?</p><p>Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used Linux and Unix systems for over a decade now .
What boggles my mind me is why a [ Linux/Unix ] " encrypted password " stored in /etc/security/passwd can not easily be " reverse engineered .
" If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password , why ca n't that algorithm be " reversed " to produce the original password in the first place ?
Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions.Even in open source systems , encrypted passwords are not easy to crack .
Why ? Could a slashdotter post some " simple to understand code " that produces output I can not reverse engineer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used Linux and Unix systems for over a decade now.
What boggles my mind me is why a [Linux/Unix] "encrypted password" stored in /etc/security/passwd cannot easily be "reverse engineered.
"If a known algorithm produces the encrypted password, why can't that algorithm be "reversed" to produce the original password in the first place?
Algorithms follow a set of logical instructions.Even in open source systems, encrypted passwords are not easy to crack.
Why?Could a slashdotter post some "simple to understand code" that produces output I cannot reverse engineer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Jeff can explain this</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1244316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a number of people have answered, but none have giving a simple and straightforward explanation to what's wrong with your question.</p><p>Simply put: Unix does not store your password.  If you've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere, someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements.  People can't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password isn't stored there to begin with.</p><p>If you want to know what is actually stored, follow the previous advice about looking up hashing algorithms.  Quick a dirty answer: when you first type in your password, a hashing algorithm is run over it and a hash code is produced, which is stored.  When it prompts anyone for your password, it doesn't know the correct answer, but whatever answer anyone gives, it runs through the same hashing algorithm and sees if it produces the same result.  The odds of two different strings producing the same hash result vary with the algorithm but it can be something like 1 in 2^160.</p><p>But the short answer is, your password cannot be decrypted because it wasn't encrypted and stored to begin with.  There's nothing to decrypt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a number of people have answered , but none have giving a simple and straightforward explanation to what 's wrong with your question.Simply put : Unix does not store your password .
If you 've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere , someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements .
People ca n't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password is n't stored there to begin with.If you want to know what is actually stored , follow the previous advice about looking up hashing algorithms .
Quick a dirty answer : when you first type in your password , a hashing algorithm is run over it and a hash code is produced , which is stored .
When it prompts anyone for your password , it does n't know the correct answer , but whatever answer anyone gives , it runs through the same hashing algorithm and sees if it produces the same result .
The odds of two different strings producing the same hash result vary with the algorithm but it can be something like 1 in 2 ^ 160.But the short answer is , your password can not be decrypted because it was n't encrypted and stored to begin with .
There 's nothing to decrypt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a number of people have answered, but none have giving a simple and straightforward explanation to what's wrong with your question.Simply put: Unix does not store your password.
If you've been told Unix stores your password encrypted somewhere, someone was glossing over the details to the point of making false statements.
People can't reverse the process of decrypting your password because your password isn't stored there to begin with.If you want to know what is actually stored, follow the previous advice about looking up hashing algorithms.
Quick a dirty answer: when you first type in your password, a hashing algorithm is run over it and a hash code is produced, which is stored.
When it prompts anyone for your password, it doesn't know the correct answer, but whatever answer anyone gives, it runs through the same hashing algorithm and sees if it produces the same result.
The odds of two different strings producing the same hash result vary with the algorithm but it can be something like 1 in 2^160.But the short answer is, your password cannot be decrypted because it wasn't encrypted and stored to begin with.
There's nothing to decrypt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193</id>
	<title>Re:DC = suits = Borg</title>
	<author>crush</author>
	<datestamp>1244318400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me a break.  It's another talented, unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in government so that they can fuck us over more efficiently.  Immunity and privilege for him, surveillance for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a break .
It 's another talented , unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in government so that they can fuck us over more efficiently .
Immunity and privilege for him , surveillance for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a break.
It's another talented, unethical scumbag joining up with the even bigger scumbags in government so that they can fuck us over more efficiently.
Immunity and privilege for him, surveillance for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28248151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28239505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28250301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28259433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28257489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28272633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_1549237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28248151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237355
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28237545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28239505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28257489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28240333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28236227
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28250301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28235275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_1549237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28234719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28238273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28272633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_1549237.28259433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
