ad: AlphaRF-1

Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Be careful here --- I'm not yet even aware that the gentleman they are referencing is authoritative. I can make any claim i wish; whether or not it is TRUE or not is quite different. Just because you can find someone who SAYS that the intent of the United States was to destroy the entire nation of XYZ....does not make it true. One has to be just a bit more discerning. I'm hoping the motives here are pure and not just hatred.

    Gordon
     
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    For those of you who are reading, while we wait for ND6M to answer those questions ---

    He referred to the tutorial whose wording is questionable as "the" tutorial. Not certain what he meant by that, but you should be aware of LOTS of tutorials created by lots of people --- that does not make them the official position of anyone other than the WRITER.

    Examples:
    Sarasota club: http://n4ser.org/2013/winlink-rms-express-tutorial/
    Our club: https://qsl.net/nf4rc/2018/WINLINKExpressVHFPrimer.pdf
    Rick Frost has a TON of videos on youtube about winlink
    Another youtube;
    Here's one from a county group: https://www.mecklenburgares.org/pdffiles/ConfigRMSWinlink.pdf
    Here is another youtube:
    Here is another youtube:
    Here is another one; http://www.pgares.org/RMS Express Tutorial WB3KAS Rev 1.0.pdf

    Do you get the picture?

    What exactly does it prove if ND6M is able to find a statement in some independent "tutorial" produced by XYZ ham?

    Does it just prove that people who have an agenda can find something to Claim as Evidence?
    How is that moving truth forward....since now we all KNOW that it isn't secure, or encrypted at all ---

    How exactly?

    Gordon
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Might as well find out the truth.....
    Gordon
     
  4. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Fair enough. I suppose any authoritative statements would come only from Winlink and anything published by ARFSi or the members therein. For those with time, they could have a look here...


    I for one am looking forward. Now that the privacy cat is out of its bag, those seeking privacy will leave Winlink leaving a better core of folks. This combined with some reasonable voluntary effort to stay inside the current ACDS segments would go a very long way towards making all this old news... for most anyway.
     
    K7JEM likes this.
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hmmm.... mixed response....
    1. Most people with any real knowledge have known for a long long time that nothing in ham radio is "secure". Difficult, yes, at times (try moonbounce for example....what percentage can read your signal??? 0.0000000001 of 1%?????)
    2. When you do need to TRY to observe someone's interests, in an emergency, and you have no alterantive for passing data, you do it the most discrete way possible. Directional antennas, odd ball UHF frequencies, some form of digital is probably much better than screaming it out over FM. You do NOT send it through a winlink central message server if you can help. Only the hardest of hearts would hold it against you that you did those techniques in a disaster situation.
    3. I doubt there are many on WINLINK who are seeking privacy. Everone has known forever that RMS sysops at the least can read your mail -- and certainly I've done that many, many times.
    4. The ACDS segments (you mean the 97.221(b) segments) are for AUTO operation and wider-than-500 Hz operation. As I have already demonstrated, things like 500 Hz winlink (and I learned some of it is only 200 Hz!--narrower than RTTY) in the 97.221(c) allocations cause literally down in the hundredths of 1% usage of time/bandwidth -- nearly 0. The folks doing JS8...same thing. It is pointless to rant and rave about something so tiny and reflects badly on the person with the vendetta. NO ONE has produced any statistical data to refute what i did in just a few hours of analysis of available data.

    Cheers,
    Gordon KX4Z
     
  6. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not trying to be the fly in the ointment, just living up to my avatar.

    KX4Z makes a bunch of noise lately about not believing some peoples "authority" in this discussion. KX4O, outed by KX4Z, claims to be able to read these messages in the clear. While I think this is a great step forward (and Mr. Huggins should claim the prize if in fact he can produce the goods), I'm going Missouri on you two. Show me. Where can I see this demonstrated, because while I want to believe all this, I'm a bit skeptical from all the prior bombastic propensities in other threads. Is there a way to third party verify this revelation? Thank you.
     
    N0TZU and K0IDT like this.
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    So that we get some CONTEXT --- here is the area around the privately-created tutorial language that ND6M asserted indicated an intent to obscure:

    A. Why Winlink?
    It allows a ham to send email from any location within contact range of an RMS Hub.

    B. Why email?
    Because, in today's world, almost everybody seems to know how to write an email message. It allows the receiver to get the message EXACTLY as the sender intended. There is no mispronunciation, no misinterpretation, no mistakes that frequently happen with voice messages. (There's also that old adage, “If it ain't on paper – it never happened!”) You can send email to ANY valid email address, @xxx.com, @xxx.net, @xxx.gov, @co.ozaukee.wi.us.

    C. Security?
    It is relatively secure. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not permit encryption on amateur radio frequencies. On the other hand, Winlink uses a compression technique that doesn't allow the frequency watcher to read the message – it looks like garbage. (The local Winlink guru has, for years, offered a substantial prize to anyone who could intercept and read a message – no one has claimed it.) D. Why RMS Express?

    ----------------------
    So, the "frequency watcher" cannot read the message -- it looks like garbage.
    What the write wrote has some validity, but the meaning of "relatively secure" "frequency watcher" are not defined, and of course it LOOKS like garbage and until recently no one did the WORK to read it.

    This is a far cry from claiming that all of WINLINK, is a violation of anything in regulations.....you have one privatley written tutorial (ND6M hasn't answered as of yet) and it makes weak arguments.

    Gordon
     
  8. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, and you may not believe they actually walked on the moon either because you were not there.

    Why don't you try and give us some justification for your skepticism:
    1. Are you a qualified programmer and have you reviewed the publicly available code from John Wiseman and concluded there is some encryption there?
    2. Did you read the actual filing by KX4O?
    3. Did you observe the hex characters received by KX4O?
    4. Did you feed them into LZHUF and reach any different conclusion than KX4O?
    5. Did you not read the witness account from Leland Gallup AA3YB of his participantion our our local demonstration

    Why should we think that you have any basis to have any doubt whatsoever?
     
  9. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    Look man, you can go full a$$hat if you want. All I asked for was to be able to see for myself, not a bunch of talking down to me for a legitimate question. Links to what you are busting my nads over is way more helpful than more bombastic excrement.
     
    K4AGO and K0IDT like this.
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    You didn't answer any reasonable question. Instead you resort to ad hominem and profanity. So I think we know what is up here.

    I teach people for a living, have for 30+ years.

    A legitimate question would be a programmer who says, "there is a private key encryption agorithm in routine xyz.c of so-and-so's code" -- but there is NOT and no one has alleged one.

    A legitimate question would be "I ran the same data into my copy of lzhuff and here is what I got which is different" -- but you didn't.

    So....come back later on when you can speak civilly and not have to use ad hominem and profanity to make your assertions, chief. You aren't going to get any audience with real experts with your discussion.

    Gordon L. Gibby
     
    WU8Y likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page