The Gentleman's Guide to Self-Defense: Part 1

George Washington's picture

Guns and knives are, in many ways, the best self-defense tools.

However - as police academies across the United States teach - a bad guy with a knife can charge and kill a good guy armed with a handgun if they're 21 feet apart or less.

In other words, before you have time to draw aim and fire your gun, you may get fatally stabbed.

In addition, if you live in New York, California or another state which makes it hard to carry concealed guns and knives - or you work in the financial services, legal or other professional setting where weapons are frowned upon - you might not be able to carry a gun or knife with you during your normal work day. (And many people don't understand the Second Amendment).

In my state, for example, it's illegal to carry switchblades or even assisted-opening knives. And none of the manual "one-handed opening knives" I've tried work as advertised.

Any weapon which you don't already have in your hands may be limited in its real-world usefulness. And you obviously can't walk around brandishing your gun and knife for no good reason.

What to do?

Find an every day object which is legal anywhere in the world, in any city or state, in any work environment ... and which you can hold in your hands at all times. The best self-defense weapon is one (1) you can carry with you anywhere and (2) which is an innocuous, every day item.

Self-defense expert Thomas Kurz - a judo instructor, trained in boxing and Kyokushin karate, who knows how to kill a man with an everyday pencil or pen - has designed a weapon you can carry anywhere, and which will keep you dry when it rains: the Unbreakable Umbrella.

Several top martial artists - such as stick-fighting expert Marc "Crafty Dog" Denny - have endorsed the Unbreakable Umbrella.

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, you've got to see the videos below to get why this is such a good self-defense weapon ...

But first let me briefly describe my experience with the Unbreakable Umbrella.

Normal umbrellas break in a strong wind or after accidentally hitting something. I've gone through scores of umbrellas over the years, and it's frustrating.

But I hit my heavy punching bag as hard as I could with the (1) tip, (2) handle and (3) side of the Unbreakable Umbrella, and it did absolutely no damage to the umbrella.

These videos show how strong this umbrella is, and how anyone can use it for defense ... without any training:

These videos show advanced applications of a weaponized umbrella:

Indeed - with training - the umbrella can successfully defend against knife attacks (which are notoriously hard to defend):

The umbrella is actually a fairly well-known gentleman's self-defense system. If you think about it, you might remember seeing it on tv and in movies ... for example Sherlock Holmes or The Avengers:

Women can use it as well:

The Premium Unbreakable Umbrella is a BIFL (buy it for life) item, which comes with a lifetime warranty. Buy one, and you'll never have to buy another umbrella (you may have to replace the fabric if you get in a fight, but the rest of the umbrella will still be solid, reliable and undamaged. Kurz sells replacement fabric kits).

The Telescopic Unbreakable Umbrella is small enough to fit in laptop cases or bags, briefcases, daypacks, book bags, etc. (You can also stuff it in a pocket, although it's a little bulky for that.) With the flick-of-the-wrist telescoping action Kurz demonstrate in his videos, this could be ideal to surprise would-be attackers with the extra reach. Specifically, an attacker might think that they are out of your reach ... but with a quick telescopic opening, you could reach them.

While not cheap, having a weapon that is indestructible - so that you know you can actually use to defend your life - is invaluable. The Unbreakable Umbrella is undoubtedly the best self-defense umbrella in the world ... as well as a fantastic way to keep the rain off you, even in the strongest winds.

Note: I haven’t received a cent for writing this review. Kurz simply provided me review copies of the Premium and Telescopic Unbreakable Umbrellas.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Able Ape's picture

Thanks much and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GW - you ROCK!  Waiting for Part 2 to appear...

Lookout Mountain's picture

Nobody wins a knife fight. The only smart thing is deflection and run for all you are worth. But if you want to carry a knife with assisted opening that truly works, try the Kershaw knives with SpeedSafe. I carry a Blur model, for the ability to flick it open reliably with one hand while out in the woods. With minimal training it is super fast. Blade is razor sharp. And there is lifetime free sharpening if you send it in.

I do carry a concealed handgun at times. But the best weapon is situational awareness.  I'm old and sick. I can tell from my shooting that my reaction time ain't what it needs to be. Gave up the steel .45 and when to a small Glock. Helped. But still too slow. Thus, I am now hanging only in areas with old or very fat people. Gives me a better chance of survival. 






tuetenueggel's picture

15 inch shotgun cal ,410 is the best. 2 Pipes in each other, no moving parts, nothing can go wrong. No failure possible and the most important: Keeps yourself clear from every  goatfucker.

Self made, reliable amd with a green Lazer an always hitting the goal-item. Guess the reaction of an agressor when he realizes the green dot on his belly ? Exactly in the green dot the load will be placed. They know that for sure.

Questions ?

ModernMusket's picture

15"? Less than 18" shotgun is a felony. 410? Try using a 12 gauge. The lazer idea is Hollywood.  Who's looking down during an armed confrontation?

cheech_wizard's picture

I offer my opponent a huge blunt. After he is thoroughly wasted, I pull out a toothpick and tell him "Do you know how many ways I can kill you with this simple piece of wood?"

Standard Disclaimer: Okay, that trick only works every so often, usually depending on the incapacitating potency of the cannabis.


SchlitzTallboy's picture

and an unbreakable Jaguar xj12c

_SILENCER's picture

Getting your ass kicked by a guy wielding an umbrella would be as embarassing as having a guy that drives a Yaris beat the hell out of you.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

How about a 007 type Pimp-cane, that is really a single shot 20 gauge shotgun {loaded with 0000 buck of course!}. All you need do is level the cane {which is really a barrel} and turn the handle. Lethal as hell up to 25 yards, which is far beyond what you will ever need in a defensive situation. You'll want the optional Pimp hat and gold veneers to go along with the cane of course.

sacredfire's picture

Try to get that through the metal detector on your way to court, or entering any federal or state building with that 20 ga cane. That's the beauty of the umbrella, can go anywhere with it.

sacredfire's picture

Try to get that through the metal detector on your way to court, or entering any federal or state building with that 20 ga cane. That's the beauty of the umbrella, can go anywhere with it.

truthalwayswinsout's picture

We use phasers that are set to kill.

bagpiper's picture

Bet my homemade cane sword, would give the umbrella a run for its money...



NoWayJose's picture

And the cane would look a lot less conspicuous on a sunny day!

And while not a weapon, carry an extra wallet with $50 in small bills and a couple non-ID cards or photos in it. Just put it down and walk slowly backward - and you will escape 90% of the bad guys.

messystateofaffairs's picture

"In my state, for example, it's illegal to carry switchblades or even assisted-opening knives. And none of the manual "one-handed opening knives" I've tried work as advertised."

Try the Spyderco Military. One hand opening with a wrist flick faster than the eye can see. No need to touch the hole on the blade. Spyderco does not advertise that capability.

cbxer55's picture

I don't know what Military you have, but I have three of them, and not a one of them is flickable. The blade is held in the closed position by a ball bearing in the liner seating in a hole in the blade. And there is no "flipper" below the handle to flick the blade. Only way I can "flick" them is the way peeps used to "flick" old Buck 110's. Hold on to the spine of the blade and flick the handle open. Works like a charm.

One of mine was bought in 1993 when he model was just introduced. The other two were bought in 2012. One is a left-handed model, the other an all black right-hand model. 

The Military is my all-time favorite manual knife. Because of the fact it is very stout, and Spyderco was thinking of left handed people as well, and made a mirror image left hand model. They don't make them full time, you have to catch them when they're available. They do them in "sprint runs", every now-and-then. 

CheapBastard's picture

I'll have to go with HH on this one. If and when that 6'8" 280 lb "gentle giant" attacks me, I'd rather have a .45 or at least a .38+p instead of an umbrella. I have seen where even tasers and pepper sray doesn't work on some of these animals.

I volunteered in the inner city ER once and there were thugs brough in shot 6-8 time sin the chest still kicking and fighting. Most were high on drugs also but still very deadly people.

Sledge-hammer's picture
Sledge-hammer (not verified) Dec 23, 2016 9:30 PM

There is fantasy e.g. TV, movies, novels and reality.  The odds are that you will not be preyed upon as a probable crime victim.  However, everyday thousands of people are victimized.  Fully one third of the U.S. population is some kind of colored minority: nigras, spics, towel-heads,  These people are not like evil YT and comprise the majority of perpetrators especially the negroes and spics.  Thus, your odds are increased if you are around these people.  I know from observation and experience that I do not want to be defenseless in a bad situation.  Thus, I carry firearms and edged weapons everywhere unless there is a metal detector and then I will carry a plastic weapon of some sort.  Evil YT's need be aware that law enforcement has no obligation to protect the individual and does not care anyway.  If you are victimized (and fortunate enough to be alive or uninjured), law enforcement will reluctantly take a report for the round file.  If you die, they just do a little more in-depth round file work.  Either way, you are just a stat.  Also be aware that law enforcement and our (((gov't))) today is more interested in protecting niggers and spics than in protecting evil YT.  You all know this from stories in which evil YT injures or kills a colored minority in the course of protecting themselves.  In these situations, law enforcement does everything possible to find an indicator that the evil YT is racist, homophobic, etc., so that they can find an excuse to cast doubt and aspersions and prosecute the evil YT.  Thus, we evil YT's are alone and solely responsible for our own personal security.  I carry weapons, because I do not want to be the victim of some skeezy colored criminal or evil YT criminal.  BTW, I carry only to protect myself and feel no obligation to protect another evil YT adult too witless to carry.  And finally, I will not ever risk my life or waste my time defending a colored person.


You're a bit of a racist Cunt aren't you ?   Wanker.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

You are too, you just aren't awake yet. You will be soon.

GreatUncle's picture

20' out a slug does the job.

Within 3-4'  rules change it is the effectiveness of the individual.

Kwon, nunchaku, knife, tonfa all fair game - this umbrella fall into the latter category you got to be holding it to kill anyone.

PS:- I got weapons, just my police force holds them for me until I need them.

GreatUncle's picture

Too long now that is my professional opinion and why I can smile :-)

cherry picker's picture

Got all of you beat

I tow a catapult behind my car.  Rocks don't cost anything and I can squish a gang if I need to.  I have a remote control in my pocket, so if someone threatens me with a gun in a mall, a second later this huge rock will squish him.

Makes a great conversation peace and no one hassles me as they don't know what it is.  It aint a gun or a knife so it is legal.

DuneCreature's picture

Damn! .. I want one!

Live Hard, Ms Creature Says If Break Any Windows Or Tear Down Any Buildings With It She's Taking It To The Pawn Shop The Same Day, Die free

~ DC v4.0

DuneCreature's picture

Pardon the semi-OT, GW.

It's all self-defense and current and the sooner I put this out the better so here goes...........

Let's talk about our CIA (Or CeyeA) little buddies.

Let's talk poisonings again by these lovely asshole 'public servants'.

This podcast down lower reminded me of some tips I have wanted to post for the 'good guys'. ... You know who you are.

Listen to this John B. Wells - Ark Midnight #28 and Interview with Anthony Patch

Short cuts to the action in the video for those in a hurry.......

Some spooks poisoning tidbits around = mins. 20-30

And some PGP encryption cautionary info from = 30 - 40 mins.
The dot gov wants you to think 4096 bit encryption is secure. It's not and hasn't been for years.


The 'Intelligence Community' (A nice friendly sounding name, isn't it?)
has studied how poison and kill people like some people collect postage stamps or make it a life mission saving orphan puppies.

Killing off those that get in their way is some cretins in the CIA research arm obsessed evil hobby.

So, if you even 'think' you might be on the CIA list:

i) DO NOT let them touch you. .. No shaking hands. Don't stand too close and beware of who is coming up behind you, ESPECIALLY if he or she is wearing gloves.

ii) Be VERY CAREFUL of reading material some spook may want you to 'take home' and read. (Explained in a previous post.) .. If the guy wants you to read or look at something make HIM open it up to the page. ... Be very wary if he is reluctant to do so.

iii) DO NOT give a spook access to your food, drink OR your clothing. .. A couple of drops of poison on the waist band of your undies, around the collar of a shirt or into a pair of gloves your going to pull on can easily be fatal.

iv) Secure your living quarters as best you can and put indicators in place to tell you if someone has been there in your absence.

Spooks can pick locks in their sleep.

v) Pay very careful attention who is around you in vehicle traffic. .. Big heavy vans and trucks to bump you off the road at a very bad spot in your travels is a spooky thug favorite.

vi) As always, watch the lead poisonings too. ... Be ready to return the Pb/Cu gifts to the spooks at high velocity.

Or you can just stop being a pain in their ass and let them kill everyone in due time.

Live Hard, Eyes In The Back Of Your Head Help You To Spot The Spooks With Bad Intent, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

Citizen_x's picture


Good stuff.  Good post.

The lads from down under sing some song about "done dirt cheap"...

I guess having an american as your avatar is offensive to some ?

DuneCreature's picture

I'm not very popular with the spooks these days. .... Or maybe it's too popular.

I don't think it has anything to do with the avatar.

Live Hard, More Attitude Than Avatar Or Place Of Birth, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

Praeda2's picture

The red nigger avatar suits your dumb ass.

You're too stupid to use gpg so a discussion of algorithms and keysizes isn't needed.

Cunt paste your FUD elsewhere, poor fag.

DuneCreature's picture

Nice try, Donnie. ....And it's PGP.

Live Hard, We Had This Discussion At The Spoke And It Didn't Work There Either, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Wow, so impressed by your knowledge!  I'm gonna take all of my crypto advice from someone who hasn't even heard of gpg and can't into maths.  I do think though that you should air-gap your system - the CIA's totally after you because you've exposed their secrets and now they're going to poison-coat the video electrons in your internet stream!

DuneCreature's picture

So your contention is that GPG is secure from de-encryption by D-Wave, I take it?

Live Hard, I Will Have That Video Stream Checked For Toxins, One Never Can Be Too Careful With Ghost Buster Gas, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

1. My contention was that you're obviously clueless, trying to correct his use of "gpg" when he did indeed mean "gpg" and you would have known that if you knew fuck all about modern cryptography.

2. I said nothing about D-Wave.  There was nothing about it in your post.  If there was something about it in the video you linked I didn't see it because the stupidity of your post ensured a 99.9% certainty that the video you were linking was also stupid.  There's no way I'm going to watch/listen-to 1.5 hours of stupid stuff just to find out, but looking at the video description would seem to confirm it contains stupidity ([2]).  Oh wait - you gave the time in the video where they discuss it, and LOL, you're just parroting, nearly word for word, the bullshit from that video!  Here's a clue for you:  No, D-Wave has never cracked encryption using 4kbit keys.  That video is lying to you, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

3. I will now (for the first time) state that no existing D-Wave system can break (in sub-century time) a message encrypted with a 2kbit key (much less a 4kbit one) using any of the better encryption techniques known today (including ones used by gpg).  Why?  Many reasons:

3a. D-Wave is almost certainly a sham.  Their systems are almost certainly not proper quantum computers, meaning they do not exhibit the "quantum speedup" that is the whole promise of quantum computing.  In fact, they show no conclusive speedup compared to normal computers (and quite frequently get their ass handed to them by a regular single-core desktop).  I have included a number of snippets from the "D-Wave Systems" wikipedia page ([3]) that supports this (not the sham part, that's my own "value added analysis" - the part about lack of quantum speedup).

3b. I see no evidence that any D-Wave system has ever cracked any encryption, ever.

3c. Even if they had quantum speedup (they don't) and a setup designed for breaking encryption (which also doesn't seem to be the case), there's still the problem that their systems are just too damned small to break a message encrypted with something like a 2kbit key.  Even if quantum computers were a thing (and I'm not sure they are - and I'm not just talking "what exists now" but "what might exist in the future" [1]), you can't use a 1k(qu)bit quantum computer to crack a message using a 2kbit key. In fact, you can't do it with a 2kbit quantum computer either.  You need to fit the encrypted message (or at least a sufficiently large block of the message) as well as a bunch of information about the English language (or whatever language/domain you think the underlying message is in) in order to crack the message.  D-Wave has never produced a machine with that many (functioning) bits.  (The largest one mentioned on the wikipedia page only has 2kbits, and has half of those disabled - presumably because the machine doesn't work adequately reliably with all of the bits enabled.)

3d. It gets even worse:  D-Wave system computers are not general purpose computers.  They can only solve "annealing" type problems.  That means that good quantum algorithms for cracking codes (e.g. Grover's Algorithm, which has been proven asymptotically optimal) can't even be run on a D-Wave system, even if there were a D-Wave system with enough bits.

3e. And worse: Brute-forcing an N bit key would normally (i.e. on regular non-quantum computers) take O(2^N) time.  Now take a look at the Grover's Algorithm page linked above.  That algorithm, which as a reminder is asymptotically optimal, only manages to reduce the brute-force cost for an N bit key to be O(2^(N/2)).  While that is most certainly an absolutely massive improvement, that time-cost still gets real big real quick as N goes up.  For N=4096 (which is what you claimed they cracked), that's O(2^2048).  Say they could run at one billion iterations per second (which obviously doesn't even apply to D-Wave systems because they can't do iterations, they can only do annealing, and if/when we ever get actual quantum computers they'll probably be lucky to operate in the hundreds of iterations per second to start out with), that's still 10^600 years.  That's about 10^590 times longer than the universe has existed.  Now that's not to say it can't be cracked faster, but to do so is going to require something more complex than brute-force, and doing something more complex than brute-force is going to require even more bits that D-Wave systems do not have.

Here's hoping that Santa brought you some critical thinking skills this Christmas!

(BTW, I'm a fan of one time pads - they're provably secure in the mathematical sense even while being extremely easy to understand.  The real threat to things like public/private key cryptography isn't quatum computers, it's that they depend on humans not knowing how to do certain types of math efficiently enough, and a mathematical breakthrough could render them broken.  One time pads are immune to that problem, but of course introduce their own unqiue logistical challenges.)


[1]: Quantum computing (which yields actual quantum speedup, not just something advertised as "quantum computing") would seem to be, at this point, still purely hypothetical.  While at least part of me would love to see it happen (and the resulting utter chaos could be both grand and terrifying), I remain skeptical of the underlying theory.

[2]: From the video description: "as these experiments, and science itself, relate to Bible prophecy", "Revising Reality: A Biblical Look into the Cosmos", "End Times Matrix News"

[3]: below snippets are from:

"These early prototypes were built upon the research papers by Umesh Vazirani, leading researcher on quantum complexity theory, who dismissed D-Wave's claims of speedup as a misunderstanding of his work, and suggested that "even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it could be scaled to thousands of qubits, [it] would likely not be more powerful than a cellphone"."

"A research team led by Matthias Troyer and Daniel Lidar found that, while there is evidence of quantum annealing in D-Wave One, they saw no speed increase compared to classical computers. They implemented an optimized classical algorithm to solve the same particular problem as the D-Wave One."

"Unlike previous reports, this one explicitly stated that question of quantum speedup was not something they were trying to address, and focused on constant-factor performance gains over classical hardware."

"He criticizes D-Wave for blowing results out of proportion on press releases that claim speedups of three orders of magnitude, in light of a paper by scientists from ETH Zurich reporting a 128-qubit D-Wave computer being outperformed by a factor of 15 using regular digital computers and applying classical metaheuristics (particularly simulated annealing) to the problem that D-Wave's computer was specifically designed to solve."

"Other independent researchers found that different software packages running on a single core of a desktop computer can solve those same problems as fast or faster than D-Wave's computers (at least 12,000 times faster for quadratic assignment problems, and between 1 and 50 times faster for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems)."

"In January 2014 researchers at UC Berkeley and IBM published a classical model reproducing the D-Wave machine's observed behavior, suggesting that it may not be a quantum computer."

"A study published in Science in June 2014 [...] found "no quantum speedup" across the entire range of their tests"

Keep in mind while reading that page that some of the comparisons are fallacious.  You can't directly/blindly compare the speed of "quantum computer" probabilistic results to regular silcon 100% guaranteed correct results.  I.e., even if it says "best known algorithm" or something like that, it's still a bogus comparison if that is limited to algorithms which are guaranteed to produce the correct result and only the correct result (which is often the only type of algorithm one wants, but in quantum computing one is forced to accept probabilistic results due to the nature of the beast - it makes me think that's one of the reasons they claim to have a "quantum computer", to trick people into accepting their computer even though, unlike other computers, theirs can, by design, produce wrong answers).  When comparing you need to do an apples-to-apples comparison, and even on regular silicon you can often get much more optimization if you are willing to accept some possibility of wrong answers.

DuneCreature's picture

Wow, that was a write up.

You are obviously into computer science way, way, way deeper than I am. .. I do appreciate the come back in detail and will study it.

Let me read it twice and we'll talk.

Live Hard. I Do Understand Where The Limits Of My Understandings Are, Merry Xmas, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

DuneCreature's picture

Thanks for the mini (or not so) education, S.N.A.F.U.

Is the D-Wave quantum built up through the various models as is claimed by Patch? .. Who knows?.. There are pipe dreams, stretched marketing claims looking for funding and then there are old CRAYs sitting idle, too.

I have had computer science people (two PhDs) verify with other techs the PGP 2048 is toast on a mere super computer attack. .. I gather GPG is open source PGP. .... I also know (or knew more detail than I can pull up anymore) the story of Philip Zimmerman and the nightmare he went through over PGP with the government and export restrictions that were sometime in the early 2000s all of a sudden lifted (the NSA had the problem licked). .. At that time the computer boys simply told me the race was over and they could crack anything with the processing that existing back then.

In whom do I assign more trust? The CIAers, or sources with no vested interest and at least enough computer savvy to clean up on Wall Street in a few short years? .. Take a guess.

Then we come to the little problem (the CIA will always adamantly deny exists, BTW) that the random number generators in every CPU clip on the planet have been compromised since 200?.

As I stated in the post it was 'cautionary' info on encryption.

Yes, I know Anthony Patch considers himself a Blues Brother and 'On a mission from God' which may perhaps be a little out there but his computer related knowledge seems valid.

I tend to base a lot of my conclusion about the insecurity of PGP on the fact the spooks all swear to me it is golden.

Again, thank you for the info.

Live Have, Big Difference Between Clueless And Un-fixable And Mistaken And Correctable, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

(Patch quotes are from the video you linked)

Patch: "the Chinese, about three months ago, maybe not that long ago, launched satellites into orbit that are quantum-entangled, meaning they communicate using a quantum computer, and therefore it's a secure link"

This guy is so far off into la la land that it's hillarious.  Quantum entanglement doesn't imply quantum computing - they are two entirely different things.  And the satellite(s? - he says "satellites", plural, but it appears there is only one, QUESS) is/are not "qunatum-entangled" - that sounds like really cool sci fi (and sounds like it's already developed/working), but it's a horribly innacurate description.  Rather, the Chinese are doing experiments in long-range quantum-entanglement (in partnership with Austria, and possibly Italy and Germany) - they're going to eventually (after some related science tests) try and see if they can set up a link between Beijing and Vienna.

And if they get such a secure link to work, it won't be because of quantum computing - there's no quantum computing going on.  Instead it would be a secure link because it would be using quantum entanglement (which prevents snooping from going undetected).

Patch: "Now, I don't have information that tells me that the Chinese are using a D-Wave-specific computer, but if they are using a computer based on qubits, then they have their own encrypted system that I do not believe D-Wave can crack."

That is more nonsense.  You don't need any sort of special computer to create uncrackable messages when you're using quantum key distribution (QKD).  Just use QKD + one time pad and... well, what do you know (from the wikipedia QKD page): "The algorithm most commonly associated with QKD is the one-time pad, as it is provably secure when used with a secret, random key."

The result can not be cracked (in the mathematical sense) - not even in a billion, billion years with a true quantum computer the size of a billion suns.  And essentially no computing power is required to do one-time pad encryption -- my 30-year old TI calculator can do it.

(QKD can be attacked by other means - i.e. physics-based attacks on the actual sender/receiver potentially up to and including physical access to the sending/receiving devices - but when combined with one-time pad [and a sound protocol] it's not crackable via computation, so supercomputers, D-Wave systems, true quantum computers - none of that really helps an attacker.  This Chinese satellite is slightly different, though, because neither of the two communicating parties is sending the entangled particles.  Rather, the satellite is sending out entangled particles to both parties (each pair split between the parties I presume).  So that introduces another whole class of potential attacks -- i.e. pretending to be the satellite and sending "fake quantum entangled particles".  That is, sending particles that aren't really quantum entangled but are instead just set into a known state so the attacker knows what the key is because the attacker is the one providing the key.  I assume they have some plans for preventing that sort of attack, at least by 2030 which is when they hope to have an actual non-experimental quantum communications network.  And of course, the Chinese are free to attack anyone who uses their satellite because it's their satellite - if you use it to get a shared key you are accepting a key from the Chinese!  That's why this comm system isn't something we should probably be fearing - it appears obvious, at least to me, that the target of this system is likely the Chinese people - to get them all to use keys provided by the Chinese government so the government can then snoop-at-will on any and all communications in China.)

host: "So even the codes that are carried around in a special briefcase"
Patch: "If they are RSA 2048 or 4096 based codes, they can be read, they can be cracked, they can be pushing the button.  I know what you're referring to, the football."

This is just more ignorance/FUD coming out of this 'tard (or tool, whichever he is).  (Even setting aside that his claims about cracking 4kbit keys in 10 minutes with a 128 bit not-really-quantum D-Wave system are bogus...)  When you bother to use secure physical transport for key material, you don't carry around a couple kbits of key material, you carry around however much you want - TBs or more if need be - and you use that key material as a one-time pad.  (We would all be using one-time pads if it weren't for the logistical issue of having to securely distribute the key material.  Once you are already securely distributing adequate key material, there's no reason not to use the simplest and most secure encryption known to man, which is one-time pad.  And "the football" is its own distribution mechanism.)

Patch: "As long as we are the sole possessors of the D-Wave technology, then it's safe."

LOL.  Is he a sales rep for D-Wave or something?  That would sure explain a lot.

Patch: "but the things that are going into this book"

Oh, so that's what it is - he's releasing a bullshit book and is trying to drum up buyers.

host: "Well, so most people, I'm thinking, might ask 'Why are you doing this?'"
Patch: "God.  Jesus Crhist.  Holy spirit. [...] I'm on a mission from God, quite literally."


Patch: "I know that the things that I'm being shown, that Chris is being shown - don't come from my own intellect"

Holy crap - I should have listened to this before.  Must... stop... laughing!
Not from his "intellect" - the jokes practically write themselves.

Patch: "I'm not that bright."

Make it stop!  Make it stop!


DuneCreature: "Is the D-Wave quantum built up through the various models as is claimed by Patch?"

I don't know what that even means.  I tried listening to the video you linked to see if Patch gave more info that would explain what "built up through the various models" means (in the 30-40 minute range where you said it talked about D-Wave), but I didn't hear anything that sounded like that.  The first 5 minutes is discussed above.  The second 5 minutes is all religious mumbo jumbo.  At this point it's way beyond clear that this guy's a total loon, and I have no intent on spending any more time on him.  (I did grab some links from the wikipedia QKD page for future reading though - I want to see if some of the stuff on key amplification might be applicable to one of my own low-priority side-projects.  I also plan on looking more into simulated annealing at some point for my current primary project - I think I might be able to make good use it for some specific AI problems - I'll have to see how well it performs to know for sure.)

"I have had computer science people (two PhDs) verify with other techs the PGP 2048 is toast on a mere super computer attack"

Unlike D-Wave systems, regular computers -- or large clusters of them (aka modern supercomputers) -- can make use of more complicated algorithms and do all kinds of mathy attacks.  In that situation, RSA is not as strong as the sheer number of bits might seem to suggest.  You can see comparisons of bit strengths here.  I haven't seen anything that says RSA 2048 has been cracked, but NSA isn't likely to advertise it if they have.  If you want something stronger (making it much less likely to be cracked) it's better to use elliptical curve cryptography (ECC).  Recent versions of gpg support ECC.  (I think PGP supports ECC as well.)

In "tricky math" terms (as opposed to dumb brute-force terms), RSA 2048 is rated as 112 bits of security and RS 4096 is somewhere around 140 bits.  If you do the math, that's still something like 10^17 years to crack RSA 2048 with a single core computer doing 10^9 iterations per second.  With a 1,000,000 core supercomputer that only drops down to 10^11 years.  However, that's based roughly on what is known publicly about the mathematics of cracking RSA.  The NSA may know more math and therefore may be able to do much better.  In those same "tricky math" terms, 384 bit ECC is rated at 192 bits of security, making it many orders of magnitude stronger than even RSA 4096.

Just an FYI - PhDs in CS don't mean shit.  (At the last place I worked everyone including myself had postgraduate degrees in CS, and still, the stupidity and ignorance, even when it came to purely CS-type issues - was sometimes absolutely amazing.  I also did a lot of interviews of potential incoming employees, and even ones with such degrees and 4.0 GPAs from big-name schools were more often than not quite lacking.  PhDs who don't know to not use a spin-lock loop because it will tie up a core and potentially deadlock the whole system, don't know how SSDs work, don't know the impacts of cache-lines on performance, don't know how to make their own data structures... it's nuts.  I rated potential employees on a 5 point scale, and out of the dozens I interviewed 1 got a full 5 points.)

"In whom do I assign more trust? The CIAers, or sources with no vested interest and at least enough computer savvy to clean up on Wall Street in a few short years?"

What?  "Cleaning up" on wall street isn't about "computer savvy".  Like most problems solved with the help of computers, it's mostly about knowing the domain, in this case the financial domain.  That's an entirely different domain than cryptography.  I myself am very knowledgeable when it comes to how to design both hardware and software for high performance, as well as things like complexity analysis, bare-metal computing, network protocols, etc., which could be said to make me quite "computer savvy".  But my knowledge of cryptography is quite shallow, and like I've stated multiple times, a lot (almost all in fact) of cryptography depends on very complex math (not computer knowledge).

Anyways, if security matters, you don't assign trust to anyone you can't adequately punish if things go wrong.  This may sometimes mean trust no one - only depend on mechanisms that you yourself can confirm are reliable.  (Again, this is why I like one-time pads.)

"Then we come to the little problem (the CIA will always adamantly deny exists, BTW) that the random number generators in every CPU clip on the planet have been compromised since 200?."

Maybe, but I kind of doubt they would bother because it's so easy to work around (and there's far more nefarious and hard-to-deal-with ways to screw with computer hardware -- e.g. how do you know your network chip isn't hacked and doesn't turn your computer into an open book?).  The thing with random bitstreams is that you can use as many as you like and (so long as they aren't correlated to each other and at least one of them is actually good) you can just xor them together and get a nice reliably-random bitstream.  For example, combine bitstreams from your processor's random number generator with white noise from an RF source with white noise from a transistor in avalanche (both of those would require additional processing to be good which I won't get into) with some Marsainne Twister with your favorite bit of music (the last of which is not a good random source - but won't hurt the result at all).  When you merge N bitstreams this way, even if N-1 of them were completely compromised and only one of them was actually good it doesn't matter - the resulting bitstream is still random.  If you're even a little bit tricky (slightly more tricky than just xor'ing) you can even take nothing but a compromised bistream and condition it to be good (though not if you're a big target and "they" know the details of your conditioning because then "they" can customize the original bitstream to get what they want past your conditioning!).

But then maybe they assume everyone's lazy and does nothing to mitigate potentially compromised random number generators and just trusts Intel completely.  Anyone who is dealing in actual valuable data, though, and does nothing to mitigate security risks - well, I don't want to say they'll get what they deserve, but they are kind of asking to be hacked.

(Oh, and that's a bold claim you're making, that "every CPU clip on the planet have been compromised since 200?".  Where's the evidence?  Are there measureable and identifiable irregularities in the generated random bitsreams?  Or is this just an evidence-free claim?)

"As I stated in the post it was 'cautionary' info on encryption."

Calling lies/disinfo "cautionary" doesn't make it right/acceptable.

Also, I have to ask, what's the alternative?  I say the alternative to bad encryption is better encryption.  "No encryption" isn't a good idea if the data is valuable (and can't be kept physically secured - e.g. has to traverse the public internet).

"but his computer related knowledge seems valid."

No, it does not - not even remotely.

"I tend to base a lot of my conclusion about the insecurity of PGP on the fact the spooks all swear to me it is golden."

???  NSA has been warning about RSA being weak (and suggesting people move to ECC) for some time.  But people are then afraid to move to ECC because the NSA recommends it. :-)  Even if they're truly trying to help (in that one case), they just can't win.

Anyways, your logic is invalid.  You should, in general, not let your trust of the claims of any entity sink below "completely unevidenced claim" - i.e., let your trust of them go negative (rather than just going to zero).  As soon as you start to take what they say as "clearly a lie (because they said it), so the opposite is likely true" then they can manipulate you by telling you the truth (thereby making you believe a lie).  (Exceptions to this rule of thumb include cases where the entity in question is simply too stupid to engage in such a reverse-psychology tactic, but I don't think spooks fall into that particular "too stupid" category.)

correction to earlier post:

Upon further research... I need to correct this statement of mine: "The real threat to things like public/private key cryptography isn't quatum computers"
While for a "try-every-key" type brute-force attack that statement is true, there are known mathy-type attacks on RSA and if you combine one of those mathy attacks with Shor's Algorithm and a sufficiently large, true quantum computer, then RSA is broken for all bit sizes the qunatum computer has enough bits to handle - it may require a lot of bits, though, because Shor's algorithm depends on fast multiplication and quantum fourier transform which requires a super-linear number of bits to implement.  ECC also breaks in that case, but AES doesn't (but is weakened a bit so even for AES you'd want to double your bit-size to make the key as strong as it was before quantum attacks).  (This is just an example of why I don't like encryption based on mathematical complexity and prefer one-time pad -- you just never know when that mathematical complexity will just melt away, leaving you with no security.)

Just for fun:

DuneCreature's picture

Alright, alright, I concede defeat. ... You've kicked my ass. ... For this round anyway.

The whole question centers around whether or not PGP encryption is secure from government level funded de-encryption methods.

I said 'I know' it isn't. .. You said it is. ... I will roll back my statement to; The experts all (almost) contend that it is secure. ..... I myself have my reservations that it is,..........but what do I know? ... Not enough obviously. ...... Homework time.

To your point about the CIA's honestly level. ... Yes, that's the rub. Sometimes they will tell you the truth, to an astonishing and unnecessary degree actually. ..... It makes the whole info stream they feed you hard to filter. .. That's the idea.

You sound like just the dude (I'm making an assumption there of, course) to talk to about AI. ..... Maybe later sometime.

Again, thanks for the cuts, bruises and lacerations. ..... I had them all coming and.......this is fight club.

Time to let this thread die. ... Probably no one left reading it but you and me anyway.

Live Hard, Have Yourself A Stellar Holiday Week, S.N.A.F.U., Die Free

~ DC v4.0

malek's picture

a bad guy with a knife can charge and kill a good guy armed with a handgun if they're 21 feet apart or less.

Yeah right, and a guy with a peashooter CAN kill a sniper.
How is this a relevant scenario again?

jughead's picture

because it happens more than your little peashooter gets fondled, nancy

FredFlintstone's picture

Look up the Executive Ice Scraper. The old Nazi in the Marathon Man had that automatic sleeve knife. Now that was cool.

cougar_w's picture

Bite the fuck out of people. Like a pitbull. Just like you were going to eat them. If you get any meat, then eat it in front of them. Smile like it tasted good. Go in for more. Repeat until they run off like a little bitch, or else when you are full.

Jungle Jim's picture

I have one of these umbrellas, but mine is the straight knob-handled model. I chose that one over the crook-handled one because the straight knob-handle one is the one carried by the Philippine president's bodyguards. I just figured maybe they knew something I didn't.

I'd like to get one of the crook-handle ones too, because frankly you can do more mean things to some poor sucker with that.

However, there *are* some venues where umbrellas of any kind are forbidden. I haven't tried to get on a plane or into any federal buildings with it, but there's a sign on the door of the courtroom in the local courthouse that specifically mentions umbrellas, as well as "tools of any kind," being banned. I think umbrealla were banned at the Kentucky Derby racetrack a few years back.

Also, I recall that at George Bush II's inauguration in January 2001 umbrellas were forbidden to all but the presidential entourage. That bothered me when I heard that. I know, I understand the rationale, but it struck me that the Commander In Chief ought not to be afraid of umbrellas.

I have not had occasion to get in any fights with mine yet. In fact I have not carried it in public for a very long time.

Publius Maximus's picture

There may be indeed locations where you can't bring an umbrella but there are also some you can bring it where everything else is forbidden (or will put you under suspicion yourself) like for example open air concerts and stuff, at least where I live. To some of those events you can't even bring a handgun even if you have a license for it.

At least you could bring eggs to W's inauguration day - or whatever hit his car most of the time...

As for being afraid of umbrellas: You have one of those, you should very well know how capable they are. They also do give some feeling of security, don't they?

However, personally I see it mostly as a defensive tool to get either distance or deflect attacks but not as an attacker's tool of choice as I wouldn't characterize myself an expert in bartitsu or other martial arts.

And, ah yes, the crook-handle ones are also better to hold in heavy rain, in my humble opinion... ;-)


HowdyDoody's picture

Some humble advice - never take a knife to a Sarmat fight.


hoytmonger's picture

I require a stick when I walk, so I use a shillelagh. The umbrella seems to be a useful item to have as well.

One-Eyed-Thong's picture
One-Eyed-Thong (not verified) Dec 23, 2016 2:14 PM

Gene Hackman : You just shot an unarmed man !

Clint Eastwood : He should've armed himself

One-Eyed-Thong's picture
One-Eyed-Thong (not verified) Dec 23, 2016 2:11 PM

i'm like jason bourne when he fights that dude off using a ball point pen

Dragon HAwk's picture

A pen or pencil sticking  1 inch out below a clenched fist makes a hell of a indentation on a skull when used like a hammer

roadhazard's picture

I'll take my chances with my .45 cal. American derringer.

sacredfire's picture

Most of you have not read the article, it discusses those that enter federal buildings or members of professions which don't allow for the carry of pepper spray, knives, screwdrivers, etc. An umbrella is allowed everywhere. These days no one knows just what the fuck is going to happen and if you think you are cool enough to gouge someone's eyes out or beat someone to death with your fists you are spending way too much time in the batjhroom looking at porn.

roadhazard's picture

I'll still take my derringer over an umbrella. I don't go in to Federal buildings.