Slashdot Mirror
1024-bit RSA keys In Danger Of Compromise?
antiher0 writes "According to an email from Lucky Green that came across bugtraq yesterday, 1024-bit encryption should no longer be considered pristine. Bernstein released a proposal that outlines the creation of a machine capable of breaking 1024-bit crypto on the order of minutes or even seconds for the measly cost of ~$1B USD. For a more thorough discussion, check out the original email."
Update: 03/26 03:16 GMT by T : And don't forget to revisit Bruce Schneier's analysis of Bernstein's claims, which cast doubt on the practicality of breaking such large keys anytime soon.
Ah whats a cool billion between friends
for the measly cost of ~$1B USD.
Is the company you work for hirring? God I wish I could call a billion dollars measly!!
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
And how much is Bill Gate worth now?
Here?
The basis for this story was on slashdot almost a month ago. A repeat? something derived from the previous story's information? the key point here is Bernstein's paper on factoring huge numbers, about which some people have commented, and which appears to "work out" on a mathematical level.
Does this mean for $2B they could crack the 2048 bit key?
but the FBI cracked the 1024 bit encrytion on my box and I was being questioned all day about me using decss to search for (using cat recogniation aligrims (sp?)) those single frame ads in popular movies convincing that "Microsoft is not an monopoly".
At this rate I think this machine should be afordable in around 5 years...
That's okay.
I'm certain that qcrack will be poorly documented and require the addition of 5,000 users to whatever supercomputer it happens to operate properly on.
Then DJB will speak incessantly about how it differs from other encryption cracking techniques with its "modular design" (which is actually the application of many patches in order to obtain features found in most SMTP daemons, err cracking programs). Yeah.
(Disclaimer: I love qmail.)
Just need the cash.
Now, where to get a billion dollars.
This just in! Encryption not perfect!
(gasp)
"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
You got a great machine to be built w/taxpayer dollars on the cheap and quick.
It is way easier for you to move up a few orders of magnitude of encryption than for them to build a machine that can crack it.
However, this will mean a bigger supercomputer for all kinds of numbering tasks - basic research and math, physics, and astronomy will eventually benefit.
Goat sex free since 2001
Isn't this related to http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/26/179206 &mode=thread
Maybe link it on the main page?
$1 billion to break RSA encryption in under a minute?
;)
All you really need is a gun, a prostitute, and Hugh Jackman.
Eminet would have us believe that certain classes of much larger keys are vulnerable.
Don't waste your money. I'll sell my company's secrets for a fraction of that.
Here's the link to their write up, commenting on Bruce Schneier's take No Big Deal .
Anyway, we all know they've been reading our sekrit kees by telepathy for years now, right?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
How does it relate to the RC5-64 challenge? Hmmm. Millions of killowatt hours were donated to the RC5-64 cracking project. Now if that money were donated directly, a machine could have been built instead. RC5 is only 64 bits so it would be trivial to crack it with a dedicated machine.
I felt like 4096 was too much so I went up to an almost weird number.
Get your Unix fortune now!
But I generally try to get my news and 'forward looking statements' from someone whose name isn't "lucky green". But what the fuck? To each his own, eh?
If you can come up with a brute force approach to common encryption schemes, could you not stay one step ahead of something like this by utilizing multiple layers of encryption, with differing methods of encryption at each level?
Give that a brute force attack is orders of magnitude more computationally intensive than the original encryption, would this allow you to stay ahead of the curve?
Also, although the papers seem to indicate that the proposed system could try multiple forms of attacks on the encrypted data, would modifying or customizing the encryption algorithm at each layer of encryption help? Computers are great at brute force attacks, but I highly doubt a system such as this proposed one can do much in the way of analysis or reverse engineering of the encryption algorithms used...at some point, you'd have to resort to good old (and slow) human deduction...
a $1Billion dollar machine does not mean that it is broken.
Sorry but theories does not equate broken. Until they actually do it I dont think anyone shoud even care. Hell eventually 1gigabit encryption keys will be broken.. Me? I plan on using a 12 terabyte key to GPG sign all my email.
I certainly am getting sick of the "tabloid news style" that Slashdot is using lately.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
i think he's plural
if you were a government agency with $1b to invest in some kind of anti-terrorist encryption breaking scheme, would you invest it in this or would you invest it in quantum computing research?
would it be worth going for the brute force attack or would it be worth finding a different solution? not to mention how much money you could win and how much cancer you could cure with the idle time.
free (as in mp3s) electronic music
Everyone needs to host their own email system. You send someone a response by hosting the response on your machine. In doing so you can prevent more than 100 attempts a day.
This method is flawed. It's strong, but as CPUs get faster you have to increase the keylength ever more and you're fucked, basically. Hosting messages yourself means you can control access in a far smarter and more fine grained way.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
That would be roughly 200,000 nights of "Intimate Services"... and we're not talking about skanks, neither - not at those prices.
I think the Cryptic Seduction approach is looking pretty good, huh?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
1024 bit, of course, is 2^1024 (approx 1.797e308). If you add one more bit (2^1025), you double the possibility of the number of keys, which means you double the computation time... In theory. This assumes brute-forcing it, and that the time it takes equals the maximum theoretical time to break it.
:)
2^2048 is 2^1024 times more than 2^1024 (that is, it's 2^1024 squared). Meaning that to crack 2^2048 - in theory - it would take roughly 1.797e308 times as long to crack.
More numbers: If this $1B computer could crack a 1024-bit key in one second (consistently), it would take 5.7e300 years to crack a 2048-bit. That's much longer than the life of the universe.
All this stuff is theoretical, of course. That's why you don't try to break the encryption, but rather look for holes in the software, or post-it notes on the monitor
-Xyphoid
If you want something to be *really* secure, you gotta write it on a sticky note and hand it to the addressee.
of this machine being utilised by ILM, pixar, or even id software..
computers that could crunch number that hard have just GOT to have a viable future in the entertainment industry.
surely these people can pull together to build me one.. um, I mean, build one to produce nice things for us to look at and play with.
it's make a hell of a chess player too.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Don't any of you bozos pay attention to prior articles? Security is about risk management. If you have something to protect that is worth $1bn for someone to steal and the only protection you have on it is 1024-bit crypto, you deserve to have it stolen.
Your homework for today is to (re)read Secrets and Lies. There will be a quiz.
By the time this actually posts, it'd be redundant, but hell, it must be said.
"...the measley cost of ~$1B USD."
MEASLEY?!
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The US government recently relaxed export regulation for public key cryptography to make it the same as the domestic restrictions. The reasonable implication that we can take from this is that they have a way to crack that length of key, or they know they can do it, if they really have to.
Either that, or the American government suddenly have benevolent feelings to the rest of mankind and a minority of their software community. Yeah right.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I mean, it's getting to the point where the dang keys are gonna have to be longer than the message!
-- Alastair
I think the government (mainly NSA) had always had the upper hands in terms of encryption no matter how good it is. 1024 is probably nothing for those supercomputers and holes in various OS.
kawai
Why? For putting his revoked keys and new keys into his Bugtraq message. Okay, it's putting your money where your mouth is, in one sense... but it was also one damn big chunk of noise, much longer than his (reasonably long already) text.
Bad form. I'd expect more class from someone who's claiming to be clued.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
That intro is deceptive at best and is, well incorrect. Remember DES and other symmetric ciphers that currently use about 128-bit or so encryption are unaffected by this. Certainly, 1024-bit symmetric encryption (your typical secret password encryption) is going to be unbreakable for centuries based on current predictions. The intro should read asymmetric or public key encryption at 1024-bits
Secondly, the advances being talked about are in factoring large numbers into their prime factors using the Number Field Sieve (NFS). This algorithm is the most advanced known factoring algorithm and if you believe the article improvements show that factoring 1024-bit length primes is doable for 1 billion dollars or so. (It was only a few years ago this kind of cost was attached to building a DES cracking machine... today I could probably crack DES on my uni computers given the software. 1024-bit factoring is only a matter of time before it is easy). However, not all public key schemes rely on the difficulty of prime factoring. Elliptic curves rely on a different hard problem
Conclusion, the intro should read "1024-bit asymmetric encryption that relies on the difficulty of prime factoring (e.g RSA) should no longer be considered pristine"
Guess I'd better stop using IPSec and SSL, now. Seriously... What are the implications of this? This is certainly not meant to disuade people or organizations from using RSA based exchanges, but rather to encourage them to increase the key sizes. As difficult as it is for modern servers to deal with high-loads of 1024bit RSA, does anyone really thing that 1536 or 2048 is going to catch on anytime soon? Saying it will cost a billion USD to crack 1024bit RSA is not much more prohibitively out of reach than suggesting businesses move to bring-them-to-their-knees 2048bit RSA. In moderation, not a problem, for hundreds of thousands of transactions day - better grab a heaping handful of Broadcom 5821's.
I'll sell them my encrypted secrets for only 1 million dollars!
It's a win-win situation, I get a million dollars, and they save many many millions of dollars.
how much is Bill Gates worth now?
To whom?
-- Alastair
Since this obviously could be used to circumvent existing encryption technologies, how long will it be before we're running a "Free Bernstein" campaign? And more importantly, if no trouble results for Dr. Bernstein, could that be taken as further evidence that the government is quite willing to ignore the provisions of the DMCA if it suits their needs?
When it came up before, there was a significant question about whether the improvements would be seen in key sizes that we are using, or whether you needed larger numbers. The conclusion of Schneier etc was that it probably didn't affect factorization of numbers people are using, though it was good research.
What is new is that people have now gone out, implemented it, and found that it really does come up to a big factoring win in the ranges of numbers that are in use. Furthermore based on real factoring examples, 1024 bit keys are doable at costs within the reach of national security agencies.
There is a difference between theoretical improvements somewhere around a million bits, and demonstrated improvements at 512 and 1024.
Take a look at Lucky Green's new PGP public key at the end of his message. Geez, is that thing a key or a keystream? I have this funny feeling we may be taking a good idea too far...
Sigmund
Ah... the old security through obscurity notion. Someone else can carry the debate here but trying to get security by trying to hide what layers of algorithms you are using is defeating the point of security research. A "secure algorithm" is basically one such that it does not matter whether the hacker has access to the algorithm or not. Cracking a "secure algorithm" should be as hard as cracking by brute force. If your security relies on obscurity, then you are asking for trouble in general
As for layering in general. Well it works for the most part (e.g 3DES) although there are caveats (2DES would not be safe). But the real point is that layering is slow. Doing 1024-bit RSA encryption is slow. And try generating a 2048-bit key instead of a 1024-bit key. It takes ages (possibly minutes on some computers). You may be increasing security but decreasing performance.
Now going back to the first point about a "secure algorithm", you are better of say doubling your key size and exponentially increasing the keyspace on your existing algorithm then either inventing your own layering scheme that may or may not work AND will be slow nad memory wasteful by using many algorithms. The short answer is, you don't need layering, just make larger keys.
People seem to be forgetting that there is a known algorithm for factoring in polynomial time. This is the Shor algorithm for quantum computers. The governent has put billions of dollars in to this research, it would be entirely prudent to assume they have working machines that can crack any key length.
I can picture the scenario now:
<TELEPHONE CORRESPONDANCE>
SHADY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE: So how much will this 1024 decryption system cost?
PIMPLY TEEN HACKER: $1B US dollars to be deposited into my secure off-shore bank account and safe passage to the Maldives.
SHADY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE: Excellent. The money is being transferred as we speak. Begin work.
</TELEPHONE CORRESPONDANCE>
<PIMPLY TEEN HACKER INTERNAL MONOLOGUE>
Sweet! I've just charged the US government 1 billion dollars for a beowulf cluster of dreamcasts running home-brew linux.
</PIMPLY TEEN HACKER INTERNAL MONOLOGUE>
<SHADY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE INTERNAL MONOLOGUE>
Sweet! We will retrieve the 1 billion dollars once we crack the secure off-shore bank account's 1024 bit encryption system
</SHADY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE INTERNAL MONOLOGUE>
:)
--cut an paste from a random joke site---
Q: How many Bill Gates' does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 15 to develop a bloated software prototype, 8 to write a horribly designed and overly complex non-contextual help system. 34 to author the help text, 122 to write the various SDKs and interfaces so that the lightbulb will work in conventional sockets, 67 to create demeaning adds that belittle other's bulb-screwing attempts, and 4 to write a lengthy book on the process.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Damn Moore's Law
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Terry Ritter, a really cool guy on sci.crypt, who happens to be a cryptographer suggests using a known algo along with a new algorithm. The tested algorithm (such as blowfish, or DES) provides security against known attacks. The new algo (such as the AES candidates, or something your best friend coded while he was drunk.. joking) can provide an extra layer to thwart cryptanalysis. Just use different keys for each step.
I love crypto, too bad I'm going to wind up as a crypto-narc one day.
Yeah, very useful analogy.
I can't imagine how big 2^256 is, but somehow I can picture the number of electrons in the universe.
And mod down this most un-funny post. Thats right its overrated at 1. I have wasted 10 second of my life reading it and another minute replying. Damn you, damn you to hell.
Okay, I've been hiding my idea, but who cares. I'm releasing it now and officialy proposing the creation of a machine capable of breaking 2048-bit crypto on the order of hours or even minutes for the measly cost of ~10B USD.
I'm currently soliciting offers from several major tech companies to fund this joint venture to be used only in the private sector.
Please call now.
Actually Bernstein says that he does not expect his factoring device to have any significant speed advantage over other factoring techniques for "short" keys, "short" being significantly more than 1024 bits.
The reason is that the speed up is asymptotic with a suspected slow convergence.
But I agree that for security critical application 1024 bits is too short, even if only because there is not enough safety margin.
Find the paper by D.J. Bernstein here.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
So THAT's what we've been imagining all those beowulf clusters of machines to do...
In overviewing many US laws isn't 128bit encryption the highest encrytion that can be used legally?
...I'd do two chicks at the same time, man...I've always wanted to do that.
like the topic says... Shouldn't we be spending the money on more useful things rather then trying to prove 1024bit keys can be cracked? We know they can with enough horesepower.
Brielle
OK -
SUPPOSE there's a US Govt agency with $1B
SUPPOSE that $ is in a black budget
SUPPOSE they built this thing.
So...
Exactly WHAT is an agency of the US Gov going to crack
that will allow it to gain exactly WHAT money
to amortize it's $1B
that won't be missed?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Hey, I've got a much worse problem to report: Most people don't use encryption!!! Right now, we're all browsing slashdot, our credentials sent in plaintext, our sessions open for anybody to see! Almost everybody sends unencrypted e-mail!
Rather than freak out about the NSA being able to crack 1024-bit keys, maybe we should be doing more to actually get encryption used by people?
Only a billion dollars of the taxpayer's money to read other people's mail? The U.S. government will take 10.
Bush's education improvements were
he sais that the article referenced by slashdot has caused him to re-examine the CUMULATIVE effects of a number different recent development, not just the Bernstein paper
Maybe the slashdot editors should do more reading?
Just because some dude makes a PROPOSAL for a RESEARCH GRANT doesn't mean its at all completed or conclusive.
These stupid headers are just another vain attempt to get people to post. Now shuddup about hypocracy.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This is why I use 1025 bits. Suckers.
You mean the Google distributed computation feature enhancement to the search toolbar can do all that?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
..if you all had used the inbreakable base encryption in the first place.
greetings to cga crackpot of the year.
According to an email from Lucky Green
That key of his seems awfully long. Sure enough, when I pasted it into a text file it was 46 kilobytes!!!
There must be something else in there besides the 2048-bit key, but what? Is the first part the public key, and the rest the encrypted message?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Where's the one that tells you to flip the light switch off and on a few times?
BILLION... well if you really want a 1025 bit haircut... 90K-140K which is about 2^16 soooooo your hair can be considered 16 bit... this means that your hair can be given a haircut in .0000000000000387142 of a second... btw that doesn't include the shave...
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
isn't it provable that all these hard problems can essentially be transformed into each other?
Or Something like that
$67 billion
For all you people who thought the plot of Sneakers (1992) was just silly and impossible... well, not so silly now is it?
unless you count those that order things online, use ssh, run encrypted VPNs...
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Why do people use small sized keys? Because encrypting with them is faster. Presumably, this ability to break small keys comes in part because of cheaper hardware. Well, guess what? Normal consumers (without a billion dollar budget) can buy faster computers for less money now too! Make bigger keys - it won't take so long now...
Before people go crazy like "Ooh my gosh, I need to use 8192 bit keys" you should read "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C" It is hands-down the best book on the topic I have very found. Here is a link to it on amazon:
[here]
Oops, Mr. Smarty Pants! I can factor 1024-bit primes for $0!
But can you prove that they are prime?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Extra caution never hurts, does it. Esepcially when using a 4096 bit keys only takes an extra few seconds of computer time these days. If it isn't painfull to use, then the stronger the crypto the better.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Everyone here uses gpg or equiv for your email right?
As a member of several mailing list most people do not even have gpg signatures, those that do never upload their public keys.
Breaking 1024 bit encrytpion isnt that big of a deal for most people.
I guess they like running naked through public parks.
Get a free ipod.
The person who builds this machine may still underbid you. The machine doesn't just crack your secrets -- it's reusable. When you amortize the gigabuck over all the different people who need to be spied on, it may yet work out to be less than your minimum bribe.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
sadly, few things have as much inherant(sp?) parallelism as factoring numbers.
(aka. you wouldnt be able to take advantage of this power doing many things. esp the kind of stuff Id would do...)
One thing to consider is that rigorous threat assesment is based on CAPABILITY, not INTENT. Clearly it seems that there now many organizations that may have the capability seriously compromise a significant and growing part of the world economy.
It doesn't cost the bad guys a billion dollars to steal your secret. It costs them a billion dollars to steal the secrets of everyone who uses the type of key the machine can crack. Your share might only be worth $10000 and it could conceivably still be worth their effort to buy/build the machine. Then you lose.
Your argument only makes sense if they have to dedicate their billion dollars to just cracking one key.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
- Good work agent ! Now, what did the message says ?
- Well it's.. *cough* a chocolate cake recipe *cough*
Well, a pricy recipe though... $1B USD for.. oh well.. :)
Don't any of you bozos pay attention to the article you're replying to? The machine takes $1B to build one time, after which it is theoretically able to break any 1024 bit keys in seconds or minutes.
Your argument is like saying no one is going to mug someone at gunpoint for $20, because a gun costs more than $20.
but if 1024 bit crypto only takes a minute to crack then theoretically during the 3 year life of this 200million to billion dollar machine. /60 minutes
$2e11 to 1e12 / 3 years / 365 days / 24 hrs
This means that all of your assets between 124,000 (if machine costs 200 million) and 634,000(for 1 billion) and above are all worthwhile "investments" of this machine's time.
Thank god I'm poor
Didn't he created his own proprietary version of the light socket and tries to make it "standard" as well as the light itself ?
We are facing some big challenges right now. Due to the crazy growth of computing power (despite the fact that new methods of calculation - factoring large number and stuff are constant being developed) Encryption standard are being obsolete faster than we can adapt to it.
Think about how long the US government will take to adopt AES.... Same encryption are going to get weaker and weaker as times goes by, we have to adapt to the rate it fades out. But apparently, encryption standards takes time to develop and get accepted. We are very likely going to change standards every 5-10 years. Government agencies, are you coming along?
What do you see in the post that is inconsistent with this view? It claims that the cost of breaking 1024 bit keys is lower than previously believed. This means that risks must be reassessed.
If you have something to protect that is worth $1bn for someone to steal and the only protection you have on it is 1024-bit crypto, you deserve to have it stolen.
Guarding a $1B asset with a 1024 bit key would be foolish, with or without this finding. (For starters, the enemy doesn't necessarily have to build a cracker, they just have to rent time on one.) But who says we were talking about a $1B asset? Trivially, there exists some scenario in which 1024 bits was a good risk prior to this finding, but is no longer. So this finding is entirely relevant to a risk management approach.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Each bit that you add roughly doubles the amount of time it takes to crack. 2048-bit encryption, although slow, is possible.
What this means is that, assuming that a 1024-bit key can be factored in 1 second, it would take roughly
57004475357125694689539104223396268823502567825
5466151385601004275993538836
5721983584043465919703756942
8489528438551201241199355703
7710357939232321268887397337
years to crack 2048 bit encryption. I'm not all that worried.
"But really, I think life is just a game of Mao Nomic." -Purplebob
This is very on-topic. He pointed out that the grandparent made a stupid rant.
Christ! If such a thing had actually been built, you would probably expect them to rush around and yell everyone about it?
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Did anyone notice this: if you open up the original email linked in the post, then scroll down your browser really fast until the end of his PGP key block, you can make out the word I AM PARANOID -in his PGP key block- ??
The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
..., folks, to re encrypt yer private files, that floated around the net for years with larger keys, before they....
doh!
And how do you propose the recipient reads it from the sender's machine?
Send the message to the recipient in plain HTTP?
Get the recipient to walk all the way to your hosting site?
Your self host solution doesn't solve that problem. Or is incomplete at best.
Suppose some agency actually did build a machine that could crack 1024-bit RSA. How would they use it? The answer is, they would keep it very secret and use it only on very important stuff---nuclear threats, etc. They would certainly not risk revealing it's existence to crack small cases.
How many tyrants and dictators around the world would think NOTHING of squeezing their own countries $1B harder in order to crack the communications of dissidents, opposing political parties, and oppressed ethnic minorities?
ObDisclaimer: this isn't some pinko commie "FUCK YOU AMERIKKKA!" post... it's just an observation that I haven't yet seen made by another poster in the thread. I see a lot of people talking about the NSA, and breaking into banks, etc etc... but middle-class white male citizens of post-industrial western economies aren't the only people who have good reasons to use crypto, you know?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Take a look at the size of the key in the original e-mail! 46080 bits by my count (no, i didn't actually count, perl did). But if that isn't subtle irony, I don't know what is.
ha-HA!
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
point is, you can still crack public-key ciphers one at the time which doesn't give you much more security. however, for secret-key stuff it's a completely different issue as you need to break all of them at once.
Anyone can afford a 1 minute time share on a $1B.
I'll just pay Guido to torture your ass for $10,000. There are other ways of extracting information . . . ironically brute force is an option in both umm professions. . .
Sort of off topic, but honestly, the investment (for the machine) isn't worth it unless you plan on doing this a lot of times, and if somebody was going to do this on a case by case basis, it would be cheaper to hire one of Pol-pot's henchmen to do the job.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
However, in a follow-up post to the cypherpunks mailing list, Ian said that he did not agree with the calculations.
In fact he says that the physical properties of the factoring machine seem "implausible", and that there is no reason to believe that the result applies to "real" key lengths like 1024 bit keys.
The depressing thing is that probably a few goverments seriously would like to spend $1 billion to try to read something in an RSA encrypted format.
.DOC and produce software capable of reading it. A much, much easier problem but one that hasn't been done completely.
Yet despite all that money and zillions of man-years being blown on reading stuff in such a format, no one has managed to go out, and no one is willing to spend the money to try to crack
There are so many *smarter* things to blow money on than cryptography that it blows the mind. Cryptography is a fun mind game, but frankly when this much money is being spent on it it's just ridiculous.
You can bribe the people involved for less than $1 billion. Heck, buy up a private army and take over the building that has the information that you want.
May we never see th
It is generally regarded that the NSA and the military have technology that is about 20 years, yes 20, ahead of what is publicly known.
The NSA has the budget to hire the best and brightest mathematicians money can buy. Whose to say that the NSA hasn't know about this for years? Sure, Bernstein could have simply "rediscovered" what the NSA has known for years.
There have long been rumrors of a $2-3B machine that the NSA has for breaking encryption. Taking time into account, that translates to that $1B machine now.
The NSA has likely been able to break these keys for years.
No, both you and the respondees are wrong.
The reason that 3DES works is that DES is not a group. That's a mathematical notion. I cannot explain it here. Read up on the lit. (Schneier, Applied Crypto is a really good start.)
Basically, most dumb encryption methods are additive - you cannot expect that encrypting once, and then again with a different method means the attacker will need to reverse the process. Many times, it is simple to defeat both in the same process. CF, again, why DES is not a group.
There are many methods that are _not_ additive, and still are a group. That is, you're not saved by making sure you're not a conjuction of mathematical ejaculate.
Crypto is _hard_. Really hard. Get used to it.
-j
I forget what 8 was for.
Even Bernstein's original paper is clear to point out that while his mathematical results are correct, and that his proposal does allow RSA keys of size n bits to be factored in the time we currently think it takes to crack keys of size n/~3.009, he proved this to be true *only in the asymptotic case*!!
This means that for very, very large n Bernstein's results are known to hold. His paper is actually a grant proposal requesting funding so that he can spend the next few years finding out if it's possible to apply the same techniques to practical-sized keys. As I understand it, what Bernstein wants to study will still be purely theoretical. He wants to calculate what the savings factor is for smaller keys. The reduction factor for smaller keys may be as large as 3, or it may be smaller but still worthwhile, or it may be negligible.
Even after Bernstein has done his calculations for smaller keys (which will take years) the results will still be purely theoretical, and there will likely remain a great number of practical challenges in building the rather unique kind of hardware Bernstein is proposing. It's possible that even if the theory holds for smaller keys, building a real machine may still be impractical.
For more detailed discussion than you're likely to be able to digest, go read sci.crypt.
From what I've read, I would say that if you have secrets you need to keep for more than 5 years, you might consider using a 2048-bit RSA key, or switching from RSA to ECC.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Then I looked at it with Wordpad, and realized I generated the source code to Microsoft Windows!
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Heh. You thought I was buying this to get your secrets. No, that's just the icing on the cake. This baby's for LAN parties. Nothing plays Quake quite like it.
And there's the occasional corporate secrets to bust into once in a while. Ahhh.
Did I mention Pac Man?
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
According to your reasoning, every man who wears underwear and pants has an inadequatly sized reproductive organ.
:-)
Or maybe their reproducive organs are something that is just private to them.
So I encourage you sir, to be naked from now on. That is unless of course, you have something to hide.
Please see this posting:
2 25 829
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30026&cid=3
(or scroll down and read it)
I wish that bum would get back to work and finish Qmail 2.0!!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I'm afraid that this story is altogether misleading.
:-)
When the paper first came to prominence, yes, it looked worrying.
However... the speedup factor appears only to apply to LARGE numbers, not necessarily to smaller ones. Exactly how much advantage one gets for smaller ones is unclear.
Note that this paper is a "research proposal", not a finished item of research. It's a very interesting read, nevertheless
However, if you're worried then you should be using 2048-bit original-style RSA PGP keys anyway (or 3072 or even 4096 bit new-style RSA keys). You might want to avoid the DH/DSS keys since the signature part cannot exceed 1024 bit....
This is the kind of story that could get huge exposure in "normal" news if there's nothing better to show. Just imagine the headlines: "Internet banking no longer safe"" "Anyone can steal your money when you shop online!" And noone would have an idea what's really going on.
Ciryon
At: $124,000 per secret.
In one hour I can crack 60 of those.
That's $7.4million worth of secrets each hour.
In a day I can crack 24 of those.
That's $178,560,000 worth in a day.
At your prices, the machine pays for itself in a little over a day.
The key to your problem is that $200 million is not $2e11 - it's $2e8
By my calculations, a $200 million machine could pay for itself in 3 years, if each secret was worth $126.
I'm poor - but I'm not that poor.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
It'll really be interesting when they start to get to ~64-bits of resolution (at least if they don't run into Heisenberg uncertainty problems when the resolution approaches Planck's constant.) Will the resolution of this technology scale that far? But things don't get interesting for public-key crypto until you're at ~512 bits.
Also, there are some problems that quantum computers can accelerate and some that it can't. For instance, factoring is tractable, if you've got enough resolution, and there's a quantum computer that was able to factor the number 15 into 5 and 3. So RSA and Diffie-Hellman are toast, at least for 4-bit keys :-) Perhaps for much longer keys, if QC can be developed, but perhaps not. It's not clear whether elliptic curves can be cracked by quantum computers, but then, it's not clear that they can't be cracked by better mathematics.
Basically, if They can crack everything using public-key technology, you're back to private-key methodology like Kerberos, or traditional methods like one-time pads and guys with Kevlar briefcases handcuffed to their wrists.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Is there any special reason all these key lengths are always powers of two? Does it have some sort of inherent advantage or is it just people's being geeky?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
the commercial version of PGP (8.x something) defaults to 2048-bit keys.
What a coincidence.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Just a thought.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is an attack on the web of trust. The author is spreading FUD to fool people into revoking their keys. If everybody follows his advice, the web of trust is gone, and it will take quite some time to reconstruct it. In the end, revoking keys based on such unsubstantiated threats will water the meaning of key revocation as a whole.
Actually, if the set and order of cryptology algorythms are chosen on the basis of the passphrase (like calculating a MD5 out of it and getting the info out of the number), it is not obscurity rather than a top level ordering algo.
Just a thought..
Another handy side-effect is that it may make the cracks themselves more difficult. It doesn't apply to breaking RSA (which is just factoring), but many of the best attacks for symmetric ciphers rely on having known plaintext - a file header, or whatever. Since the plaintext in this case would in fact be (hopefully) random ciphertext, the attacker's got a lot less to work with.
There are disadvantages, of course - you don't know that the two algorithms together are secure, and when considered as a whole, the chances are that they're not more secure. You're relying to a certain extent on the attacker sticking to the rules and considering the supciphers as subciphers, instead of just trying to cryptanalyse the whole mess. The other difficulty is that the more layers you add, the more key material you need - at a certain point, you begin to have trouble getting enough truly random data.
PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
See the archive.
Maybe it's the case in America, but where I come from, a (highly skilled) man needs more than money as incentive to work somewhere...
I'll follow on although you sound like you know about the subject already. Firstly the cryptanalyst may well have more luck breaking the combined layered cipher than trying to break both individually The layered cipher may well be weaker! There is no law that says that if you perform two strong encryptions over a plaintext it is at least as hard as each encryption. This unknown is one reason against. (In practice, layering is "probably safe")
The next thing is that I strongly doubt that even DES will be "broken" ever. It has been under scrutiny for too long and the only successful attacks are based on brute force and require vast amounts of data for a known-plaintext attack. Brute force... what does that mean? 56-bit breakable today. 128-bit breakable tomorrow. 256-bit breakable... when there are more than 2^256 electrons in the universe! Which there aren't
How can you be very dead? Death is boolean, you're either dead or not dead.
We're talking about RSA here. RSA is a public key algorithm. One where you can give out your public key, keep your private key secret, and anybody can send encrypted messages to you, but only you can decrypt. If you keep your algorithm secret, it becomes totally pointless.
In general, layering can help, but doesn't always, and can make things worse if you are careless about it. But keeping the layering scheme secret doesn't help much - it's probably equivalent to only a few bits of key, and if it is cracked changing schemes is much tedious than changing keys (and that assumes you _know_ it has been cracked). Making up your own crypto is almost always a really bad idea.
rant
..."from criminals".
:)
Good idea.
Only marginally more respectable than dealing in weapons (Contras) or Drugs (Chile)...
And much, much, much more less dangerous...
Also, it's only a short term plan.
I mean, if the politician allow secret services to finance themselves on criminals, who is going to give them money when election time comes again ?
The conclusion is that Export Crypto in MS windows only meant opening your pc to the world, US spy agencies first.
So, if it's critical, please don't use Windows.
i thought of putting this in 'ask slashdot' to be honest, but here goes ... what kind of effort is required to invent a reasonably efficient language which of course only you and your confederates would be able to use. esperanto, es an example, required a mere *eight* years.
the advantage with this is that it requires practically no encryption, if any.
"jan? khlaz tuirt'kah dar gangan Mbou!"
any idea what it means? nope, me either. and if you want an example of how strong this kind of 'encryption' is, simply take a look at the puzzles linguistics has tried to crack over the years: Linear B, (Linear A is still a mystery), hieroglyphics, etc., etc. For an example of something which is *still in plaintext and not deciphered*, check out the Voynich Manuscript.
OK, I'm not saying that one can simply go off and invent a perfect language in a coupla weeks, but look at the pseudo-languages like Elvish, Klingon and whatnot. Ideas, criticisms, reactions??
Plus of course, if someone is holding a cattleprod to your crown jewels and you're standing in a bucket of water, it doesn't *really* matter whether u used gazillion-bit keys anyway...
nalfy
-- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --
We keep 'discovering' that 56, 128, 1024bit encryption is 'not enough'. Well why don't we just go right on up to 16 megabit encryption and buy ourselves a few years of leeway before the US gov't finds enough money to catch up ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Don't you know the difference between flamebait & a troll?
Also, don't forget to add Moore's Law into the mix. The cost will just keep falling exponentially.
Interesting theory. But it assumes that every key cracked is one of value. I'd see the "low value secret" approach only being usable in a "trawl" of communications over public links - satelite, broadcast, IP peering points, etc - as opposed to targeted attacks. So you've got analysis overhead, encrypted ssh sessions ferrying porn, SSL of standard web traffic of no value, etc, to deal with. Knocking up your secret value; but in that untargeted scenario the value of your secret is irrelevant. Its about if you're lucky enough to avoid being caught and analysed.
Now, if you have something worth protecting and someones going out of their way to target you the cost just got higher; the process of targeting a particular stream is much more complex and expensive than just having the data materialise out of thin air within the system.
But yeah; if you're talking aerospace contracts or finance or any other industry that employs a lot of citizens and provides wealth for vested interests this should be deemed significant.
I use triple-4096 bit keys :)
So, if I'm trying to decipher something, I might well find it easier if I ran it through DES with an unknown key first? Why have I never seen that it any code-breakers handbook? (Of course, if the keys are non-indpendent, extra encrpytion may reduce security.)
Dan Bernstein has been yelling for the past few weeks since he published nfscircuit that his work does not yet apply to 1024 bit keys (or other "realistically" small key sizes).
In spite of that, stories like this one keep popping up, forcing him to defend himself from idiots who construct bogus straw-man analyses against points that he hasn't even made.
I would rather see Bernstein continue this work, and have knowledgeable people peer-review it, rather than see people waste their time discussing whether solar cells cost more money than AC power (an argument DJB had to get involved in on sci.crypt) and other such lunacy.
Correct!
:).
Also, if you think your privacy is worth $1B, just upgrade your key size
Regards
If you wanted to mask the fact that you were using 5ROT13 instead of 3ROT13, you could XOR the message after each application of ROT13. How would you write that?
5XORROT13?
Looks like something my old admin would have thought was a swell password....
But here we go into the debate about security by obscurity vs. sec. against brute force.
Say that you reveal your encryption (eg. in a header field), regardless if it's 3DES, 5ROT13 or 9ROT13^XOR, you reveal how to brute force it. If you on the other hand don't reveal your encryption technique, then it will take brute force to analyze the encrypted data and if discovery is made, brute force again to decrypt the data. In this sense obscurity does indeed seem like a much more secure way of hiding data than advertising the technique used. On the other hand, for your encrypted data to be useful in a distributed environement (such as encrypted e-mail), then a lot of people will need the decryption software, and thus security goes out the window as anyone will now be able to reverse the decryption code and get a hold of the algorithms used and their orders (if multiples are applied on top of each other).
I think it's likely that vulnerabilities will be discovered in some ciphers as better analytical tools become available. Layering ciphers can mitigate this problem, and it doesn't cost much.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
If the subciphers are independently keyed, the overall cipher is at least as strong as the weakest subcipher
;)
In almost all cases, yes. But not if the two ciphers are a group, for example.
Key length means nothing if you can find analytical attacks.
True also but one could just as well find an analytical attack in the combined layered cipher if a "poor" choice in ciphers is chosen
Basically, if I had to choose what cipher to use, I think it is more likely that I would make a mistake in choosing a poor combination of ciphers to layer than I would someone finding an analytical attack in a cipher that has been analysed for decades.
The fact is, both layering and key-growing are both valid and are both used. I just happen to prefer one over the other
the post of that guy.
Screw this 31337bit encryption, 10-line PGP keys are annoying enough, but imagine getting this shit in every email!
5XORROT13
Damn... that's the combination on my luggage!
short summary, 1 billion can easily be justified in the eyes of law enforcement legwork. However privacy issues involved cause a hamper. This is the US antitrust against the world. They feel they have things to protect at the cost of going against other wishes. They are clearly saying how they feel and it comes across as US. The long still wanna know what a troll is... its not that ugly fur ball creature that falls into the water in willow and turns into that huge monster thingie that spits fire "Taliban and PLO communications and whatnot" but what are they going to use it on after they do a couple more holly wars... huh? who's next next thing you know its gonna be your grandmothers nursing home then they'll start the stiknine(so I spelt it wrong) injection you know first enemies then less enemies then less freinds then then .. you yes you could be next... but half a billion can't they just say.. you have brown hair lets send a bomb to your house...? are they really that clueless... thats what scares me that they have to buy a .5 billion or 1billion dollar decryption machine can't they just use those satalites and really good scented dogs?,, or just use the lightposts as fiberoptic sensors.. oh too late.. but what if they are decrypting some stuff always won't they get not bad people stuff too isn't that invasion of privacy??? not to mention in the case of cross nationalities and stuff thats like war stuff isn't it.. not only this but they're gonna get bored eventually... I suggest giving the billion to the plo taliban people yup.. then all of them won't have a reason to fight... their standards of living will all go up and then they won't have a clue what to do .. well not really but What exactly is till 1billion dollars is quite abit of money.. you could probably bribe god with that type of capital.. the catholic church does it right so why can't the goverment do it too... that price tag seems offully high though.. ... bad taste but they got insurance money don't they ..eh well 1 billion thats allot of money.. that is allot of money. and where are they getting these messages to decrypt... my guess is if they have the messages then they know who the bad people are and if they know who the bad poeple are why can't they just drug them to hell and get the information out of them the old fasioned way... playing truth or dare.. I dare you to walk down the middle of that highway naked.. ok .. I did it now I dare you to tell me all your secret plans for world domination.. its fair in love..and war.. truth and dare same diff... but I guess you are talking about saving live.. not to mentino trying out a really cool thingie.. comon imagine the guy behind that thing... he would probably feel like well ...me.. but think of all the neat things you could do with processing power like that.. you could make really really neat techno tracks.. techno track.. decode world plot to assasinate world leader.. techno track world leader.. eh the world leaders can wait lets make the techno track.. ok so its not funny I found it funny and thats all that matters... frankly I think 1 billion is a huge price tag considering that decryption will not happen to any message intended to be unreadable except by the chosen person.. the reason I know this is because I'm not that smart and I feel I could make sure a message couldn't be decrypted even by god himself... it's wasted money in my books the good part of it is the stuff that comes off of it though like the technology development and skilled thinkers out of it.. but if they have 1 billion sitting around I'm sure there is lots of well in africa to be drilled or universities that can be set up in the middle east etc... the key to safety is knowledge and not the hoarding of it but educating others educated people relize the futility of war and of killing.. also huge anger management course.. just think where the world would be if hitler or stalin was enroled in anger management courses.. ok not funny once again I find it funny and thats all that matters... can't they just use like a desktop or something.. intel should be coming out will 44ghrtz in time for next christmas shouldn't they... 1024 bit encryption... they invented encryption didn't they make the decryption at the same time like some crackpots would in bad taste say like the hiv virus.. ok eh... I gotto stop doing that.. get it all out of my system now.. ok 1024 encryption ... this note could ... can't they just guess.. if they get it right then their ment to get the message.. no.. just an idea.. I guess they can just scrap building like one destroyer or something to make up the money.. what scares me is that .. hmmm...
" Anyway, its not like crackers, with malicious intent, would go buy themselves a 1 B dollar supa-puter to intercept your midget pr0n transaction.
So quit being paranoid, and go back to jacking off to your gay beastail midget pr0n. :-P"
but what your forgetting is that my gay beastail midget pron is my code... duh.. like I need the pron to jack off to... I got my imagination...
"Anyone wanna take out Hillary Rosen? That RIAA bitch needs to go!"
we must remember hillary is not a bitch.. bill is... bad taste again.. must remember not to do that oh well.. .. can't blame em... well sure you can.. ok blame him but dont hold it against him.. sure you can... ok hold it against him blame him but don't do anything about it.. sounds good. hmm people are only human. hmm whatever
"When carrier battle groups, air wings, army divisions and the fate of nations are on the line, $1 billion for total SIGINT access is cheap indeed.
Break out those one-time key pads and pigeons, boys, the government will own your electronic crytposouls before you know it."
imposible.. it's the other way around. They break the law they are accountable. No one is above the law. They will be held accountable for any wrong they do against humanity even their warped veiw of humanity.
decrypting some elses mail is not nice to do.. if they wanted you to read it they would send it to you.. that's prejudgment of guilt or innocence.. which is not a nice thing to do. How can they expect someone else to be nice if they arn't. They who create the seeds of ill fall prey to it.. as always humans fall prey to their thoughts and imaginations if not now when least they expect it.
It's funny if your expecting people to know your secrect and everything why not make it as distastefull and boring as posible... but... lets... not .... be ... too ... boring.... wasting peoples time is plainly not a nice..... ... thing to do... why not teach whylst.. you bore... wait....I think it's lack of trust that is really not nice.. once again how are you suppose to trust if they have no trust.. having a little trust yes I can understand.. but having no trust.. that is something else entirely different// thats almost as bad as..well anyway
"It *is* a measly sum - as the email says - how many government agencies have this sort of funding? More than just a couple of US agencies that's for sure."
must be mircosoft.. ... so much bad taste so little room.. ok must be dod or some other liek oh this isn't getting posted...
"Now here's the scary part. Once they've made the $1B investment to break terrorist encryption, do you really think they'll have 420,000 encrypted messages from terrorists sitting around waiting to be cracked? No, but they're going to have to find something to crack with all those spare CPU cycles to justify their expenditure..."
ok now it makes sense... it will be made by the RIAA!!!! to stop software&music and other such copyright enfringments... if say there was 420,000 hotmail or pgp or whatever then you would probably.. uhmm no not getting posted.
"I'm sure Curly would love to sell them $1 Billion worth of Marvels, although I'm equally sure that BG will do everything he can to stop it. Just think - financial independence for Compaq could be just a contract away, and it will probably never happ "
hey that's an idea.. buy a bunch of comics or cards..hold them for a year.. then sell themm.. then that agency can buy the magic decryptor ring for free..... eh.. that's almost right up there with like investing a billion in the stock market but with comics you can almost gaurenty a investment return... ... I just think this idea is a really good one because it lets me imaging a bunch of people with rifles and uniforms putting comics into plastic sleaves with sterile gloves... ... you could even make a documentary out of it and air it on fox... that might even get a few more dollars... you could even call it project swordfish2 ... I could see it... yah I could see it...
"At this rate I think this machine should be afordable in around 5 years..."
hmm ...that made me think less costly countries ... when they get the technology if they don't already have it... what how much does it cost to make really good sand... ... or why not just have cell phones always connected to the networks and use them as processors... since everyone and their mother has a cell phone.. start up a save the nation cell campaign.. huh.. ... yah I can see it. so their might be some battery issues... or why not just buy up old computers.. and use them not only can they be sent to underprivelaged places but you could also have them backup as decryptors... or even buy somputers for all you shcools and during nighthours have them used... hmm humans sleep for how long.. how long do computers sleep... really how many unused computers are their.. how many us goverment computers sit unused how many funny... I don't mind others adding tomy music.. anyway.. why not use the investments you already have.. or integrating cost into use for more than regular use.. like lots of stuff I can think off but why not let you think about it. First of all is there a need....? Or is it the cross effects that are benificial... where is it going... 1billion super computer.. would be odd if it just sat on top of some guys desk... its probably going to need like a corner or something and you would probably have to move a fax machine or something.. so really I'm thinking you would need a facility and if you have a new facility.. it would probably either be under a shopping mall accessed through sewers or need some type of gaurd or something... so that some kid doesn't try to play quake on it. Actually you could probably get some nice multy playergames off a processor like that.. but back on topic.. the machine itself is not the only cost to consider so I would hope that they also took into account this in the pricetag... but 1 billion.. must be cause that is allot of money... like I get a $10 a week allowance and 1 billion is like... allot more than $10. theres like 00000000 more zeros... thats allot of money... actually 1000000000 it doesn't look that big when I type it out...1000000000 but still anyway... I think that lifecycle cost taken into account 1 billion works out to 10000 or less scientist salaries or doctors or others.. research generated from these professionals would... doesn't the us have like some huge national debt or something.. I know its some type of issue or something here. .so if they have a debt thats like me going out and buying new car when I have all this alamonie(so I spelt it wrong) to pay ... I had this friend who owed me like over $100 for over a year it really sucked... just another thought... hmm
"While it's not going to be on the same price curve as high-volume PC production, there are still Moore's Law effects here - the price/performance of FPGAs and ASICs keeps decreasing as technology improves, and the price of smaller-width chip design keeps improving. The real question is whether the development of this sort of machine can piggyback on other hardware development, plus how motivated is the NSA to build it as further research indicates whether or not it will be really useful..."
what about spending 1billion on a computer that will design a 1billion computer.... instead of spending the it was a good idea originally.. like the intel computers that make the chips why not funnel the billion in economic computers for next year or whatever.. and then use that older computer for olderstuff while the newer computer actually does it... ... personally I am more of a direct research type person that spending money to get people to think is a good if not better investment that getting what you know you can already have... I am also a firm beleiver in anything I can think someone can think better.. and in this case that means that well if this system is designed solely for decryption you better hope there are allot of stupid terrorist.. if there are allot of stupid terrorist then... well its not a funny matter but its almost like saying ok try better its like training them .. its like some cruel game to up stakes... its like well... people are blowing themselves to peices for their ideals.. don't you think its time to talk or something rather than just get ready to see more people die. The other thing is if well not to give ideas but I would think that any ring would already have set operating procedure and any smart ring I would think would have a rule for time in messages.. only trust in person and don't time delay your messages type policy.. the thing once agian I would hope that professionals would actually have a better system... but it seems pure off topic to this system .. I think its good they want to spend 1 billion on this but I can't see it being effectively used for decryption of sensitive messages.. I would hope that well hope not but that any sensitive data is not held in conventional methods of decryption even if it is time consuming methods. .. oh well... like I could only see this used on really stupid people... and these are the last people that I would want to see locked up because stupid people myself included are the most har...it would be more like this person is using 1024 bit encryption ok this will be fun... if you know its a message its even funnier.. its like we know this guy is sending encoded messages.. hmmmmmm... I would be more concerned with where the message is going.. and who is receiveing it.. and seeing if those people use the same anyplace that is using private messages you know wants to hide something anyone that wants to hide something is potentially an enemy.. thats my simple logic.. or rather is trying to protect something.. if it is not obvious what that is then that is when you have an issue.. when you know obviously that there is something they should be hidding then either that person or orgianzation should be very much your friend or you should have very much your friend high up... otherwise well ...
or even why not start a program to get desktops worth 1 billion to welfare and other such poeple throw in tutorials etc.. for training.. hook up highspeed lines and use the systems as extra processing power for a central system.. ... not only do you get skills training but you also get a secondary use plus you get lots of other stuff.. really I gues power cost is one thing.. but that wouldn't be an issue if people just implemented my wire the world and solar powering programms...
"How can you be very dead? Death is boolean, you're either dead or not dead."
I have a firm beleif I can't acutally die... other wise why live.... one day you may find out this not to be true but always I will believe this.. it goes along with the belief you truely know nothing other than your own existance.. of course testing this theory goes against the belif.. don't fuck yourself up too much..
More than Cowboy Neil has but if I were to really tell you I would say $1 plainly what I know only I know... what everyone else knows its the same story but in my case well ... no one ever listens to me anyway.. but no I don't think that I could ever trust someone trying to buy my information.. it would have to be a mental symbiosis really I can't put a value on something that someone can just shoot me afterword for its sort of senseless... there is no reall price .. what I don't like is all the invisble technolies being used like the robotic spider that was crawling phased on my ceiling and the invislbe men watching me.. but really.. I still wondering about that odd spider.. the organic one not the machine one thats been hanging around my house for the last couple months.. its pretty nice though and likes my coffee too well I don't actually know if it likes the coffee but I think it tired it out.. but what could someone want to buy off me they couldn't go to a few years in university for.. or less.. like highschool or even like well hmm.. all I have to say is who I am now is not who I was two years ago.. and who I am now is what matters to me and where I continue from... anyone that would actually consider buying my information would be responisble for divedends off intellectual properties if any income was garnered of 10% of net profit they would also be responsible for putting me on salary aswell as responisble for 1% net profit of any of their intellectual property. If it was a one time thing I think that it would depend but the answer would be how much are you offering.. and then yes or no...
"Anyway, we all know they've been reading our sekrit kees by telepathy for years now, right?"
but what about counter telepaths?? how are they suppose to read their keys???
"when there are more than 2^256 electrons in the universe! Which there aren't"
huh?????
I think that the only somewhat safe encryption is that not understood by anyone else other than those that need to know sorta like signlanguage.. well not really but you get the idea
"If strong AIs are developed, who knows what could be analyzed... "
If ,,, although the ai would still be dependant upon processor type and power..i.e. either neural structuring or traditional stucturing..
going back to that thing about revealing my most secret secret.. I have to say that I couldn't tell you anything that I promised someone I wouldn't...
foriegn war as a means to say we rule local domestic don't even try something.
"except in that sense you aren't gonna crack by brute-force anything even 128 bit in the next 20 years"
huh?? I would hope you have greater expectations for yourself 20 years from now.. especially with all those brain steroids and cybernetic memory plants... not to mention 98th demension gates... think more get less get more than less
"Using multiple encryption on one message may not increase the difficulty and may even lower it. Encryption algorithms are mathmatical formula so this example will suffice even though it may be simplistic. Say you have two encryption algorithms F(x)=8x and G(x)=x*x*x. You may think that by combining the two would make it more difficult to find x but F(G(x))=(2x)*(2x)*(2x) or 2x cubed which is as difficult as G(x) by itself. But say instead of G(x) you used H(x)=x/8 which would simply decrypt x to it's original value. In short to be able to combine encryption algorithms you have to know what they do and even then there is no garuntee that you're not introducing new holes"
whats H's value... I don't know about you but my simple math skills say that you can't find a numeric value if there are more than one non numeric value you would still have... hold on.. really the values can represent a bunch of things... but none is prooveable simple algebra is simple regardless all it is is isolation.... nevermind... ok here's a new hole non logical coding... or exclusive keys that are not based upon binary representations such as hyroglphics or the like iconography and only having one instance each esentially a new language for each message but each language has traits of previous languages and the key to traits lays with well boring stuff but anything that can be encountered in many cases but there are probably better systems.. I personally think seperate languages.. like those secret hand jestures the president use.. but say like military training for instance having a 1 or two year course for groups that use their own specialized language like learning spanish... but having spanish german etc.. so developement of new language groups for specialized that way even if the simple logics of breaking codes exist then you still have to break the cultural context... etc.. etc.. which is just the tip of the iceberg for a truely secretive society.. but why... why hide ideas we all have the same goal. and it would be so much easier reached together in cooperation.... I guess ultimately it will be cooperation regardless just not necisarilily conventional
slashdot teaches you so much stuff that if you went nowhere else on the net you would learn stuff from elsewhere on the net(a compliment intended)
"Making up your own crypto is almost always a really bad idea."
for who?
"The reason why increasing the key size is so much more efficient is that by increasing the key by only a single bit, you double the number of possible keys."
wouldn't you more than double?
"I certainly am getting sick of the "tabloid news style" that Slashdot is using lately."
Arn't all the tabloids telling the truth? I thought they were... I'll tell you if I'm just kidding around..
as far as tabloids I see slashdot as informative yet not boring as hell(minus myself of course)j/k.... hmmm I'll have to convert each post to an essay aswell ..j/k....(j/k)
"$10 billion worth of data "
better not be web accessable hell better not be accesable... security is so simple how can there honestly be a threat.. security=secure... secure=non-accessable non-accessable=secure
"...lets you steal all of Visa "
how many slots are there.... how many names are their?.... when was registry for numberslots of type... what are registry dates etc... carding I would think would be a simple task but its not a nice thing to do. but honestly I don't know how to myself
I just want to know who owns the damn phase mechanic spider
"if you were a government agency with $1b to invest in some kind of anti-terrorist encryption breaking scheme, would you invest it in this or would you invest it in quantum computing research?"
ever heard the phrase don't put all your eggs in one basket... I wouldn't buy the basket.... but I woudn't drop the eggs either I would probably make an omlet or just scambled eggs or if I was feeling really nice I would probably give the eggs to other people if they were hungry... both or neither honestly if it works it works if they both get your desired result then what advantages does one have over another.. from what I know about quantum computing it sounds like it can handle complex mathematics on a much faster basis than conventional systems.. I don't know the limits of quantum computing or the limits of what is available for 1billion... honestly I don't think that using a 1billion dollar system for one use exclusively is a good idea but I would say no clue.. whatever works best... I personally don't think I could design the system they are planning for either the quantum or the regular... so I have no clue... whatever does the most for technology progression ease of use and other stuff like facility size personel required building time cost trust issues etc.. I don't think that the system is needed for terrorist*.... reasons though. just politely ask.. are you plotting to kill so and so or .. bomb so and so.. or smugle this and such.. if they don't tell you .. then well you can't hold it against them.. if they do something then... I guess they did it...I guess thats against the whole national security thing though.. then again I'm not employed by the NSA so.. I would consider upgradeability etc.. and use after lifespan.. what is the point.. either they have well I guess there is the whole toy philosophy aswell ... I guess do as much as you can ... but the whole idea of the volume of messages to be sorted... the only way I could see it humanly posible is to actually use keywords etc.. which could miss huge chunks of data... I guess this is pestimistic but it would seem that either your going to be able to get information through simple means or the people will be using advanced means... the whole thing is like putting reinforced doors on the aircraft... it just makes it that much more difficult.. it can still be done and anyone wanting to plan it can plan it.. so I guess the whole concept to this system would be cutting out lower rings etc.. while the more advanced rings minus corperate ones would be reduced to military oposition... and it would be difficult to hide them unless they were extremely well engineered... so the 1billion investment would be to threaten ... they would get their money out of it..... either system whicheverone works ....
"When it comes to terrorism, encryption really isn't the main problem. Identifying, isolating and eliminating causes (be they philosophies -- such as a desire for complete theocratic control -- or individual people) is."
i.e. reverse social engineering....
"The real issue is control. Governments in general seek to expand their control, just look at how many laws we have now, compared to a few hundred years ago. The government can't control what it doesn't know about, thus it desires to know everything. The maddening thing is, some people have the audacity to encode their communication with a cypher that's very hard to break. The government knows there must be something interesting in those messages, but they don't know what. What's a billion dollars compared with the knowledge (and associated power) that comes from reading those tidbits."
This goes back to the philosophy that if they wanted you to know they would tell you... how rude.. it's not like I'm innocent of never snooping through someone else stuff.. for instance the end result of years of snooping resulted in my skull being accidentally smashed into a door being kicked down... resulting concosive force cause my nose to bleed and my skull to warp.. life hasn't been the same since.. my skull is still dented but what I am trying to say is... don't bite the no thats not it.. why not just ask and if not respect their wishes... I don't like the idea of my protector being my watcher too.. or rather that reminds me more of say a dictatorship.. holdon... oh yah don't piss of the people that run the world.. must remember this.. *elitist state* coug coug... but what the hell can you do right... just be a good little boy and everything will be ok...but in my eyes the goverment already does a terible job at representing the wide populas and for the most part is non-visioned and to conflicted.. basically it's not doing an effective job... but hell I'm not the one hell I'm a bum... what the hell do I know... oh well
"For a time in writing my own webforum software I considered doing login passwords as a file upload of a key file. The problem here though is that you send them a file to decrypt and they can spend as long as they want pawing at the file, and eventually brute it out. It's the model of sending someone a file that they decrypt that's broken - not that key length"
set a limit for logins.... just like this message will self destruct.. or time encoding.. but I got no clue how that would be done.. what I do know is anything I can think can be done though... sorta like the attempts at one time downloading etc... of the RIAA type stuff thingies.. reall the RIAA is interesting to see what they come up with... huh?
"Unless they crack your head..."
my head is dented or cracked in two places that I know off.. yes more useless information peole don't need to know
What does factoring have to do with rendering, or, for that matter, chess?
factoring could have representaions into processing strength.. I think anyway... with software on board a processor or utilasation in processor based network intellegence designes you could have fast reponses... thats a way I tie it in... when you think solving algorythms I think speed when I think speed I think processing.. just because this one would be specific... anyway thats how I see it...I havn't looked at how factoring works on a system outside of regular processing... sure I'll read something about it sometime soon..
"If you have something to protect that is worth $1bn for someone to steal and the only protection you have on it is 1024-bit crypto, you deserve to have it stolen. "
stealing is not a nice thing to do.
"I feel it's more likely they have finally realized what people on Slashdot have said hundereds of times in the past: Encryption above 128 bit is readily available to anyone who searches for it, export restrictions will not stop it.
What do you think?"
I think a human can get anything it knows exists if it wants to.. its just how bad they want it..
interesting my monitor is acting...
"If your enemy is a major government and you don't have a very large budget yourself, you might as well give up now, IMHO. Not because I think they could factor 4096-bit RSA, but because I think they probably can get into your house without you knowing about it and tap your keyboard. The only time an attack like this wouldn't be called for is if the danger (to life, to diplomatic relations, whatever) of their being discovered is worth the money they'd have to spend on a more sophisticated attack."
that would be b&e and that is not nice. Not nice people must deal with their not niceties... and if I was to attack a goverment agency they wouldn't know it... their concealment by the ultra obvious and their is the reversal for all time.. people are people... I feel I understand logical existance I feel I understand science.. since I understand these two things I am able to account for all logical posibilities and because of this know that anything is posible...
"32 bits isn't centuries; its about 45 years if Moore's law keep up, but RSA is much weaker than that in fact, so an extra 32 bit might only be 5-10 years."
what about ashley's law.. anything you know about someone else has probably already made and if not.. well
maybe I'm just missing something but what's so hard about brute forcing a large key.. the complexity doesn't seem there how many pobilities how many systems.. how many attempts... but I guess there is something I'm missing..
"The non-conspiracy argument that I've heard makes a lot of sense to me, at least. US government believes that E-Commerce is going to be big. US Government notes that US retailers can export lots of goods to other countries if e-commerce is enabled. US Government notes, exports==good. US Government realises, people outside the US need to be able to communicate securely with companies inside the states in order to perform such transactions. US Government allows export of strong crypto, giving US a world lead in e-commerce market.
Money is almost always a better explanation for the actions of Americans than malice."
it's not posible. atleast as far as conventional logic states... you can cut out the amount of people that can do it but you cannot erase it... no technology that can be created is uncounterable... the difficulty is a different matter.. but even when dealing with say forgery and impersonation.. with skill such as voice alteration surgeries etc... aswell as advanced set ups and skilled individuals anything is posible but off course your talking about skilled groups... with personal resource.. of course ties in the whole technology push verses maintaing training etc... we are holding ourselves back but in fear.. I guess its just cause I'm mad and have already got to concensus in my life that I feel I will always be because I cannot account for the logic in ending so because of this I can only place hope in that all things will be good in the end. I can only hope that everyone else feels this way sometime other wise I could be very lonely. The other way just doesn't matter.
"If I remember correctly, there is a section in Applied Cryptography where Schneier calculates that the sun going nova would not provide enough energy to flip through every combination of 256 bits, never mind actually testing them to see if they decrypt the message. So yes, 1024 bit symmetric encryption will be secure from brute force attack for quite some time, at least until we start building black hole powered computers and feed entire galaxies into them."
does the blackhole contain more energy than a supernova? I thought that a blackhole was the result of the destuction of many stars or rather colistion... so it would be spent energy forming a lactice of negative forces orrather a tear in the regular .. well baiscally highly dense concentration of base matter... or maybe it is an alien camo.. ... the thing though if my concept on inverse realities or opostion realities exists then you can have any amount of energy needed as long as it is reversed in the oposition reality it would still hold things at a balance but I'm not a physisict(hell I can't even spell it)
"polynomial factoring algorithm does not exist."
You got to be kidding, whats so difficult about polyniminal factoring?
"Of course, your love letters are copyrighted by you, so... Yeah, NSA will be liable to you for the market value of your love letters."
The market value is not predetermined. The potential for profit from anything is altered by any action that comprimises that copyright... so the love letters etc.. Deemed priceless would hold the NSA liable for well... everything. Plainly they may think they have buisness snooping but really they don't but who am I hell I'm not even american. I guess I just believe all things will be accounted for in the end. People have to live with all their choices forever. I guess people have this whole power thing going on. There appears to be bad guys etc.. But I take things on a person to person basis. WTF is up with this world.
"like the topic says... Shouldn't we be spending the money on more useful things rather then trying to prove 1024bit keys can be cracked? We know they can with enough horesepower."
Hell thats what shearbear and napster are for arn't they?
I just write like this no one would waste all their time reading this I hope.. So if I write one little thing on one page in war & peace...
"This is the kind of story that could get huge exposure in "normal" news if there's nothing better to show. Just imagine the headlines: "Internet banking no longer safe"" "Anyone can steal your money when you shop online!" And noone would have an idea what's really going on.
"
yet another reason why the capitalist system is flawed.
""jan? khlaz tuirt'kah dar gangan Mbou!""
"third door to the left make sure you flush after using,:"
OK, I'm not saying that one can simply go off and invent a perfect language in a coupla weeks, but look at the pseudo-languages like Elvish, Klingon and whatnot. Ideas, criticisms, reactions??
I had this same idea if you read earlier.. But what you are forgetting is if in the case of privacy you must no stick to known course say for instance if I were to use musical scales and frequecy ranges etc.. To send messages as a language unless you have the score first you would have to have an ear or proper mesuring devices etc... for instance morse code is rythmic dots and dashes etc.. You could apply one type of messaging to one instrament sound or frequecny it would get to the point instead of being a visual representation it would be a audio representation although it would be a highly advance language... anyway I like the idea but I think it would take some time I think you have the right idea... of course spoken languages can be picked up by other people that are able to learn... its definately a way of keeping people out of the loop I was over at this dutch families place some years back.. I sware dutch hurts if you only speak english and try to follow a conversation.
"Plus of course, if someone is holding a cattleprod to your crown jewels and you're standing in a bucket of water, it doesn't *really* matter whether u used gazillion-bit keys anyway..."
Sure it does cause you can tell them anything you want.. And there is no way of them nowing unless they can crack the code... but I did find it funny
"There is another problem with this idea. Namely, languages are easier to analyze than mathematical cryptosystems, for a number of reasons.
Languages are believed to have "deep structures", which are common to all languages. This would mean that you could figure out the nouns and verbs and such in the language with a bit of work.
Even without these deep structures, you will eventually come up with a list of words, and you can then use conventional information theory to attach meanings to those words. (ie. you notice some words occur more often just before some action.) "
so now you know what not to do if you are making your own :"secret language.. Now you just need to use alien thought .. Thats not hard now is it... but as far as words etc.. What about using mathematical scientific etc.. Meaning size descriptions changes in reality representations... so this far this way etc.. Within 3d space having each demension in represnetion forces vibration sound smell etc.. The emotion envolved is a separate issue and would be conveyed in the actual representation of the language....
hmm sooner
Buddy, don't forget about the dot-com crash. Property in London, England is now more expensive than in Tokyo, Japan, a few years ago this would have been unthinkable. So the pace of storage systems advancement has decreased. If you saturate an ADSL download pipe, then you can't fill a hard drive. 120Megabytes/hour ADSL download * 24 * 365 * 2 = 2,100,000 Megabytes if you constantly download for 2 years. So 2100 Gigs is the maximum hard drive size anyone would need unless there is an advance in technology and holographic 3D videos start to come to market, or ADSL speeds increase massively, which with Telcos screwed as they currently are and for the next few years with loads of dark fibre, and less than 1 percent of homes taking up high speed internet seems very unlikely.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?