完美者（wmzhe.com）网站以软件下载为基础，改版后的网站对功能性板块进行扩充，以期能够解决用户在软件使用过程中遇见的所有问题。网站新增了“软件百科”、“锦囊妙技”等频道，可以更好地对用户的软件使用全周期进行更加专业地服务。
一个安装的 + sFTP 和BatchFTP 客户终端
CryptoTerm 包可以获得对多元化的体系环境 — — 开始从 Windows、 Unix环境中 ，IBM大型机系统通过统一的、 统一的、 直观的访问。我们已取得它由于这种产品作为综合行动： 终端仿真程序、 基于窗口的FTP客户端和批处理FTP 客户端。
"锦囊妙技"栏目是聚合全网软件使用的技巧或者软件使用过程中各种问题的解答类文章，栏目设立伊始，小编欢迎各路软件大神朋友们踊跃投稿，在完美者平台分享大家的独门技巧。
本站文章素材来源于网络，大部分文章作者名称佚失，为了更利于用户阅读和使用，根据需要进行了重新排版和部分改编，本站收录文章只是以帮助用户解决实际问题为目的，如有版权问题请联系小编修改或删除，谢谢合作。
软件大小：9.66 MB
crypto currency 加密货币 crypto 英['krɪptəʊ] 美['krɪptoʊ] n. （尤指信仰共产主义的） 秘密成员; [网络] 加密; 加密技术; 国际密码讨论年会; [例句]The crypto system or checksum function is invalid because a required function is unavailable. 由于要求的程序不可用，加密系统或校验和函数无效。 [其他] 形近词： crypts crypta krypto
如果没有备份，也不能导出，只能是重新下载证书，获得新的两码有两种途径： A.通过网上银行系统进行证书更新：进到网上银行操作界面，点击：“个人信息管理”，点击“客户证书更新”，然后再点击提交。即可获得新的两码，重新下载证书，再导出即可。 B.无法进入到网上银行系统的，需要本人带上注册的银行卡和有效身份证件回到原经办网点重新申请补打密码信封，再下载证书。
例如字符串＂abcd＂通过某个加密算法加密后变成了＂0dcba0＂（就是返序后，前后加0），如果你用＂1dcba1＂去解密，那么解密算法就不认识了（因为它只认为前后加0的才是它对应的加密算法加密后的结果），这时程序就会抛出"bad0＂这样的异常。 当然你遇到的就是BadPaddingException异常了，因为你的解密算法认为你需要给它一个按照特定填充规则填充后的byte数组，不过你给错了，就像我上面的例子一样。
In cryptography, rubber-hose cryptanalysis is the extraction of cryptographic secrets (e.g. the password to an encrypted file) from a person by coercion or torture,[1][2] in contrast to a mathematical or technical cryptanalytic attack.The euphemistic term refers to beating someone with a rubber hose until they cooperate. The Russian equivalent of this term is thermorectal cryptoanalysis, which refers to a joke about using rectal insertion of a soldering iron.According to Amnesty International and the UN, many countries in the world routinely torture people.[3][4][5][6] It is therefore logical to assume that at least some of those countries use (or would be willing to use) some form of rubber-hose cryptanalysis.[1] In practice, psychological coercion can prove as effective as physical torture. Non-violent but highly intimidating methods include such tactics as the threat of harsh legal penalties. The incentive to cooperate may be some form of plea bargain, such as an offer to drop or reduce criminal charges against a suspect in return for full co-operation with investigators. Alternatively, in some countries threats may be made to prosecute as co-conspirators (or inflict violence on) close relatives (e.g. wife, children or parents) of the person being questioned unless they co-operate.[4][7]Although the term is used tongue-in-cheek[8], its implications are serious: in modern cryptosystems, the weakest link is often the human user [1]. A direct attack on a cipher algorithm, or the cryptographic protocols used, will likely be much more expensive and difficult than targeting the users of the system. Thus, many cryptosystems and security systems are designed with special emphasis on keeping human vulnerability to a minimum. For example, in public-key cryptography, the defender may hold the key to encrypt the message, but not the decryption key needed to decipher it. The problem here is that the defender may be unable to convince the attacker to stop coercion. In deniable encryption, a second key is created which unlocks a second convincing but relatively harmless message (for example, apparently personal writings expressing "deviant" thoughts or desires of some type that are lawful but taboo), so the defender can prove to have handed over the keys whilst the attacker remains unaware of the primary hidden message. By using these techniques, threats to operators or other personnel will be ineffective in breaking the system.[citation needed] The designer expectation is that rational adversaries will realize this, and forgo threats or actual torture.In some jurisdictions, statutes assume the opposite i.e. that human operators know (or have access to) such things as session keys, an assumption which parallels that made by rubber-hose practitioners. An example is the United Kingdom's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,[9][not in citation given] which makes it a crime not to surrender encryption keys on demand from a government official authorized by the act - irrespective of whether or not there are reasonable grounds for even suspecting that the data encrypted held any illegal material.[10]According to the Home Office, the burden of proof that an accused person is in possession of a key rests on the prosecution; moreover, the act contains a defence for operators who have lost or forgotten a key, and they are not liable if they are judged to have done what they can to recover a key.[9] However in such cases, the prosecution only has to prove that the accused had the key at some arbitrary time in the past - regardless of whether they still have it.[9][not in citation given]
