If you are looking for more open challenges, both the 11b-x-1371 series and Cicada 3301 have unsolved stages. I have a copy of the last Cicada code book in a box somewhere, as it looked like a forked fake path, but it's a kitschy bit of internet apocrypha. Also, just do cryptopals (which I haven't actually done and still really should at some point). The John McAfee deadman switch puzzle looked like a hoax, but judging by the number of transactions on the $whackd blockchain and the stakes involved if even a fraction of what he was on about were true, it's plausible NSA or GCHQ got to it first. Those are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.
If nothing else has come out of the stream of scandals afflicting that agency, it's that they need better people. If you are eligible, do it, as you could be the change, and it appears the opportunity for improvement there is truly unlimited.
I did the first two "chapters", then I had to stop for personal reasons and never picked it up again. Perhaps I should put it on my github as a mark of dishonor.
I wish they would expand the participation to anyone who’s interested in code breaking or working at the NSA. I’d love to take a crack at it myself.
Also, some of the best security researchers I know never went to college. So people with non-traditional academic backgrounds are excluded from this which is a bummer
Typically the result is a job at the NSA. Though federal positions are criminally underpaid relative to their private counterparts so you have to really have a passion for the mission. Unsurprisingly the government is highly interested in finding talent cheaply. The winners will be responsible for taking a drug test and a polygraph though - which most people coming out of a CS program won't be able to pass ;D.
I glanced at last year's, it looks like a pretty practical scavenger hunt with multiple steps and increasing difficulty. Pretty cool reading what goes into an exploit that would give someone a shell.
> Sorry, that email domain is not recognized. -- An email address from a recognized U.S. school or university is required. If your school's domain is not recognized, please request it to be allowed by clicking HERE
edit: to add some comment: Too bad only this group can participate. Just wanted to have look what type of puzzles they are and recreationally have a stab at them.
You're not who they're looking for. They want young (and therefore cheap to employ), bright eyed kids who haven't yet developed a sense of ethics or learned of the atrocious things the NSA gets up to.
Cybersecurity can be critical for the nation and the agency tasked with national cybersecurity can also do atrocious things. The two are not mutually exclusive.
What? We passed this resolution that led to an increased US presence in southeast Asia in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that later evidence has shown never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
The NSA itself later admitted they lied about the report, ignoring any sigint that contradicted what they believed happened.
> The National Security Agency (NSA) had broken North Vietnam's codes, and McNamara emphasized to Johnson that certain decrypts conveyed that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had been damaged by American destroyers, thus proving that the second incident happened. However, several intelligence analyses at the time accused McNamara of having either misinterpreted, either intentionally or by mistake, decrypts referring to the first incident of August 2 and presenting them as referring to the second alleged incident of August 4.
I don't understand why you think this quote is relevant, maybe you think that was the only part used so the entire thing was an honest mistake that still killed many?
>In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that an attack on the USS Maddox happened on August 2, but the August 4 attack, for which Washington authorized retaliation, never happened.
>As the evening progressed, further signals intelligence (SIGINT) did not support any such ambush, but the NSA personnel were apparently so convinced of an attack that they ignored the 90% of SIGINT that did not support that conclusion, and that was also excluded from any reports they produced for the consumption by the president.
McNamara admits of didn't happen, the NSA admits they intentionally doctored the report.
First, ordering the attack of homes with no regard for civilians nearby and no concrete proof that someone "bad" is inside is fairly unequivocally atrocious. I think if your loved ones died because the NSA assumed a bad guy lived next door, you'd consider it an atrocity.
Second, I consider lying to spread more warfare and all the horrors that entails atrocious.
No idea, but the thread above is about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Snowden revealed quite a bit of execrable behavior, and quite a bit of historical bad behavior has been revealed over time. They are certainly not paragons of righteousness and purity.
Neglected and even actively undermined the right to privacy is an act against the society. Some would consider that being an atrocity - contributing to a dystopia with oveareaching control of unchecked guardians ;)
Undermining the right to privacy is wicked, especially when you consider incorporated methods.
Atracious: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel - after Merriam-Webster. The key word here is "or".
Mind, that ovearreaching control has a great potential of abuse, including physical violence. Also notice, that the right to privacy is often recognized as a human right.
Great film, but right after that, Sean (Robin Williams's character) says:
"It's not about the job. I don't care if you work for the government. But you can do anything you want, you are bound by nothing. What are you passionate about. What do you want? I mean there are guys who work their entire lives laying brick so that their kids have a chance at the opportunities you have here."
So, instead of praising Will, Sean questions why Will seems determined to keep drifting while seeming clever. I always thought the implication was that it's better to define yourself as "for" something than "against" something, even if you sound smart in a wicked way by doing so.
If nothing else has come out of the stream of scandals afflicting that agency, it's that they need better people. If you are eligible, do it, as you could be the change, and it appears the opportunity for improvement there is truly unlimited.