Heinz Maulshagen and team have already written an LVM for Linux. This LVM is already in the 2.3.x series of kernels. What is IBM's reasoning for this duplication of effort? Might it not be more effective to assist in the current LVM implementation instead of bringing additional complexity? Or are there advantages in IBM's approach to logical volume management?
Comments containing the entire document yes, however I believe that excerpts, clearly marked as such, would be covered under fair use. IANAL, whatever that is worth
Well, there seems to be some misunderstanding about Sun's choice of versioning, which is actually symbolic of some things that they have been changing in the core OS. As you may (or more obviously, may not) recall, SunOS4.x was BSD based. Sun decided to change to a more SysV based style, so they decided to start calling it Solaris and change the versioning scheme to 2.x (SunOS being 1.x, I guess), but lots of things still come up as SunOS5.x on a Solaris box. Solaris 2.7 actually completed their changeover, so instead of 2.7, which symbolizes the changes, they called it Solaris 7, symbolizing the completion of the change. Of course, it is still Solaris 2.7 and SunOS 5.7, but it makes more sense than M$ Winblows 9x or NT or 2000.
I do not work for Sun. I do not work for M$. This is hearsay;).
That is an interesting take on it. I guess I assumed the opposite, that is that we might have fewer major feature changes per minor version than we do now. I mean, 2.0.x to 2.2.x was a humongous leap, and it seemed to me that releasing a minor every 6-12 months would maybe force better feature discipline.
As far as bugfix / optimization, I would assume that, for example, 2.2.x + (some features) + (2.2.x bugfixes) + (2.3.x bugfixes) = 2.4.0, in the cycle envisioned. This means that the 2.4.0 codebase should not be too far away as far as, e.g., filesystem or network drivers are concerned, but maybe 2.4.0 has features X, Y, and Z that comprise the main diff between 2.2.x and 2.4.x. I think that it could, therefore, turn out to enhance the stability of the system as a whole by integrating useful features into the stable branch when they are ready, rather than basing the stable branch on certain features.
Sorry, that is not correct. It is the specification of a machine which can not currently be built which will speed up one portion of a factoring process. It would make possible the factoring of 512 bit numbers in approximately 9-10 weeks, but 768 bit numbers will be factorable in 1038 years (Shamir's estimate), and 1024 bit keys in 10^6 years. This is not a very practical device, even if it could be built.
IMHO, the most amusing "weakest link" that I have ever heard of was also during WWII, only in the Pacific. It seems that someone picked up a piece of carbon paper out of the water, and that carbon happened to have been used several times by the secretary of some Japanese admiral. Unfortunately, I can't quote sources, but the long and short of it was that this sheet of carbon paper had all sorts of goodies - and was obtained in a very providential way. So it is most likely that which you are not now able to see that will come back and bite you in the ass. As is mentioned before, NSA strengthened DES against a type of cryptanalysis that would not be "discovered" for years yet.
Eheh, this doesn't really have anything to do with bill clinton, nobody would take it _that_ seriously except for some really wacked out conspiracy theorist... not that they don't happen, but this is a little too far.
But I wouldn't count on the "American electorate" doing anything differently than they do now. As the philosopher Marcuse and the linguist Noam Chomsky both point out, we have a rather one-dimensional system here in the US of A, where there are only ever black and white types of choices, but even worse, our "choices" all just seem kind of the same. Big corporate-sponsored Republican or big corporate-sponsored Democrat? What is the difference?
I use USWorst as well, and since I was one of the first to get DSL in Minneapolis, I went with uspest.net. Bad idea. The service is great when it is there, but the ISP seems to lack knowledge about how to keep their systems up. The gateway (which is not the modem, BTW) goes down for a few hours at least once a week, maybe more. At the time I purchased the service, usdreck was the cheapest by far, but now other ISPs are competitive. I run 512kbps with statics, and I have to run my own DNS and mail servers (at least if its down its my fault:).
Also, ufwest outsources their tech support, and they don't tell them anything, which is the most frustrating part of the whole experience. If something is down, I know more than the people I am calling!
I could go on about general incompetance (hmm, MX record, CNAME, what are those? Whats the difference between a subdomain and a hostname?), but as usual with the telco, its reams and reams of paper.
"These are the perils of open government," said Stephanie Hanna, an Interior spokeswoman. "We try to make as much of the materials of the Interior Department as open and available as possible. The consequence of that is, those who choose to do damaging things can do that."
Gee, I wish they would have told us that sooner! I guess that even though GATT has gutted our clean air act, everything is going to be OK, cause we have an open government here in the US of A! And even though the Interior department practically gives away the mining and grazing rights on Federal (read: PUBLIC) land, I guess thats OK, too, cause we have an open government! I bet that all of you in other countries must be jealous of our HMO's, cause our open government doesn't have the guts to pass single-payer health care.
Hmm, perhaps the "open" in "open government" is the state of our elected representative's palms.
I would have to look at it again, but one of the arguements against warp drive from a "physics as we understand it" perspective is that it requires so much energy that we have to drag around huge amounts of anti-matter to get enough energy. The Physics of Star Trek was where I got that from, but I am glad to see that that may no longer be true.
Ok, lets assume that this means that in 30 years, 1024 bit keys are going to be crackable using this method. This means that any secret which I use a 1024 bit key to hide right now is good for 30 years, assuming no other advances or weaknesses found in the cryptosystem. So my current credit card number can be cracked in 30 years + 1 year to crack. For most "secrets" this is riduculous. Remember also that the cost is $5000 per device after design is complete, and it would take several of them plus time on a Cray or equivalent serial processor (part of the algorithm runs serial, not parallel). Remember to ask yourself if your secret is going to be worth the amount of money and time to crack it. 1024 bit keys are still enough for non-ultra-top-secret-eyes-only-this-message-will-s elf-destruct stuff 90+% of the time.
But seriously, this was an interesting article. It just goes to prove that if you are using key sizes of less than 512 bits for public key cryptosystems, you may be vulnerable to advances in factoring rather than advances in raw processor speed.
The main advantage of this is that 512 bit keys can be factored in 9-10 weeks as opposed to 6-7 months with the previous application of this factoring method (described in the paper). This means that with this equipment and assuming that the estimate is correct, 768 bit keys can be factored in 1038 years (Shamir's estimate of 6000 * len(512)). A 1024 bit key would be factorable in approximately 1x10^6 years with this method and optimal conditions, however such a number requires exhorbitant space, upwards of 256 GBytes for the sieve 10 TeraBytes to store its matrices.
Bottom line, any key of 512 bits is good for about 9-10 weeks. The recommended minimum key size is still 1024 bits. The paper's conclusion sums this up best:
Conclusion The idea presented by Dr. Shamir is a nice theoretical advance, but until it can be implemented and the matrix difficulties resolved it will not be a threat to even 768-bit RSA keys, let alone 1024.
Its more important to have the freedom to use strong encryption so that we don't have to worry about being forced to choose weak keys in order to communicate.
Slashdot Mirror
Heinz Maulshagen and team have already written an LVM for Linux. This LVM is already in the 2.3.x series of kernels. What is IBM's reasoning for this duplication of effort? Might it not be more effective to assist in the current LVM implementation instead of bringing additional complexity? Or are there advantages in IBM's approach to logical volume management?
http://linux.msede.com/lvm/
Comments containing the entire document yes, however I believe that excerpts, clearly marked as such, would be covered under fair use. IANAL, whatever that is worth
Well, there seems to be some misunderstanding about Sun's choice of versioning, which is actually symbolic of some things that they have been changing in the core OS. As you may (or more obviously, may not) recall, SunOS4.x was BSD based. Sun decided to change to a more SysV based style, so they decided to start calling it Solaris and change the versioning scheme to 2.x (SunOS being 1.x, I guess), but lots of things still come up as SunOS5.x on a Solaris box. Solaris 2.7 actually completed their changeover, so instead of 2.7, which symbolizes the changes, they called it Solaris 7, symbolizing the completion of the change. Of course, it is still Solaris 2.7 and SunOS 5.7, but it makes more sense than M$ Winblows 9x or NT or 2000.
;).
I do not work for Sun. I do not work for M$. This is hearsay
-Chris
That is an interesting take on it. I guess I assumed the opposite, that is that we might have fewer major feature changes per minor version than we do now. I mean, 2.0.x to 2.2.x was a humongous leap, and it seemed to me that releasing a minor every 6-12 months would maybe force better feature discipline.
As far as bugfix / optimization, I would assume that, for example, 2.2.x + (some features) + (2.2.x bugfixes) + (2.3.x bugfixes) = 2.4.0, in the cycle envisioned. This means that the 2.4.0 codebase should not be too far away as far as, e.g., filesystem or network drivers are concerned, but maybe 2.4.0 has features X, Y, and Z that comprise the main diff between 2.2.x and 2.4.x. I think that it could, therefore, turn out to enhance the stability of the system as a whole by integrating useful features into the stable branch when they are ready, rather than basing the stable branch on certain features.
-Chris
Sorry, that is not correct. It is the specification of a machine which can not currently be built which will speed up one portion of a factoring process. It would make possible the factoring of 512 bit numbers in approximately 9-10 weeks, but 768 bit numbers will be factorable in 1038 years (Shamir's estimate), and 1024 bit keys in 10^6 years. This is not a very practical device, even if it could be built.
IMHO, the most amusing "weakest link" that I have ever heard of was also during WWII, only in the Pacific. It seems that someone picked up a piece of carbon paper out of the water, and that carbon happened to have been used several times by the secretary of some Japanese admiral. Unfortunately, I can't quote sources, but the long and short of it was that this sheet of carbon paper had all sorts of goodies - and was obtained in a very providential way. So it is most likely that which you are not now able to see that will come back and bite you in the ass. As is mentioned before, NSA strengthened DES against a type of cryptanalysis that would not be "discovered" for years yet.
-Chris
Eheh, this doesn't really have anything to do with bill clinton, nobody would take it _that_ seriously except for some really wacked out conspiracy theorist ... not that they don't happen, but this is a little too far.
But I wouldn't count on the "American electorate" doing anything differently than they do now. As the philosopher Marcuse and the linguist Noam Chomsky both point out, we have a rather one-dimensional system here in the US of A, where there are only ever black and white types of choices, but even worse, our "choices" all just seem kind of the same. Big corporate-sponsored Republican or big corporate-sponsored Democrat? What is the difference?
I use USWorst as well, and since I was one of the first to get DSL in Minneapolis, I went with uspest.net. Bad idea. The service is great when it is there, but the ISP seems to lack knowledge about how to keep their systems up. The gateway (which is not the modem, BTW) goes down for a few hours at least once a week, maybe more. At the time I purchased the service, usdreck was the cheapest by far, but now other ISPs are competitive. I run 512kbps with statics, and I have to run my own DNS and mail servers (at least if its down its my fault :).
Also, ufwest outsources their tech support, and they don't tell them anything, which is the most frustrating part of the whole experience. If something is down, I know more than the people I am calling!
I could go on about general incompetance (hmm, MX record, CNAME, what are those? Whats the difference between a subdomain and a hostname?), but as usual with the telco, its reams and reams of paper.
From the CNN article:
"These are the perils of open government," said Stephanie Hanna, an Interior spokeswoman. "We try to make as much of the materials of the Interior Department as open and available as possible. The consequence of that is, those who choose to do damaging things can do that."
Gee, I wish they would have told us that sooner! I guess that even though GATT has gutted our clean air act, everything is going to be OK, cause we have an open government here in the US of A! And even though the Interior department practically gives away the mining and grazing rights on Federal (read: PUBLIC) land, I guess thats OK, too, cause we have an open government! I bet that all of you in other countries must be jealous of our HMO's, cause our open government doesn't have the guts to pass single-payer health care.
Hmm, perhaps the "open" in "open government" is the state of our elected representative's palms.
-Chris
I would have to look at it again, but one of the arguements against warp drive from a "physics as we understand it" perspective is that it requires so much energy that we have to drag around huge amounts of anti-matter to get enough energy. The Physics of Star Trek was where I got that from, but I am glad to see that that may no longer be true.
-Chris
Ok, lets assume that this means that in 30 years, 1024 bit keys are going to be crackable using this method. This means that any secret which I use a 1024 bit key to hide right now is good for 30 years, assuming no other advances or weaknesses found in the cryptosystem. So my current credit card number can be cracked in 30 years + 1 year to crack. For most "secrets" this is riduculous. Remember also that the cost is $5000 per device after design is complete, and it would take several of them plus time on a Cray or equivalent serial processor (part of the algorithm runs serial, not parallel). Remember to ask yourself if your secret is going to be worth the amount of money and time to crack it. 1024 bit keys are still enough for non-ultra-top-secret-eyes-only-this-message-will-s elf-destruct stuff 90+% of the time.
But seriously, this was an interesting article. It just goes to prove that if you are using key sizes of less than 512 bits for public key cryptosystems, you may be vulnerable to advances in factoring rather than advances in raw processor speed.
The main advantage of this is that 512 bit keys can be factored in 9-10 weeks as opposed to 6-7 months with the previous application of this factoring method (described in the paper). This means that with this equipment and assuming that the estimate is correct, 768 bit keys can be factored in 1038 years (Shamir's estimate of 6000 * len(512)). A 1024 bit key would be factorable in approximately 1x10^6 years with this method and optimal conditions, however such a number requires exhorbitant space, upwards of 256 GBytes for the sieve 10 TeraBytes to store its matrices.
Bottom line, any key of 512 bits is good for about 9-10 weeks. The recommended minimum key size is still 1024 bits. The paper's conclusion sums this up best:
Conclusion The idea presented by Dr. Shamir is a nice theoretical advance, but until it can be implemented and the matrix difficulties resolved it will not be a threat to even 768-bit RSA keys, let alone 1024.Its more important to have the freedom to use strong encryption so that we don't have to worry about being forced to choose weak keys in order to communicate.