You still need to be reasonably close though, because the handicaps only go up to 9. My brother, of similar strength to me, lost by 180 not so long ago, on a 13x13 board.
Type and use the mouse with two hands like normal. Have your ipod/camera/etc on the inside of your belt or a pendant round your neck so it's in contact with your skin.
No, she doesn't care about deflate ratios as such, but she does care about how many files she can fit on a floppy, so rar matters. If she didn't care about the compression, wtf would she be doing using zip at all?
RAR is better compression, and the compression ratio is all that matters. I had 1.2gb of binaries to fit on a CD, tar+bzip2 had it at around 780mb (gzip I interrupted at around 900mb). Arj was 706, but rar did it without breaking into a sweat: 636 mb, I had enough space for feather linux as well.
I connect my computer to the internet without a firewall. Well, OK, technically it has a firewall, but the computer is in the DMZ. No problems. If your computer is not safe doing that, something is seriously wrong with it.
I don't. I'm still using 2.4 series kernels, still using 1.x apache, and the day I am forced to upgrade is the day I switch OSes. I've tried 2.6 and apache 2, they don't work for me, so I put a line for each in/etc/portage/package.mask saying not to upgrade to them. I should be able to do the same thing with windows.
People complain about things which are problems for them, which is both of these. The firewall is a kludge when there are simple better solutions: stop having all those services running by default, and you get rid of the problem without breaking programs. Also, the problems with it are MS's own fault for not doing this ten years ago. Don't worry, we would have bashed them more in the long run if they hadn't done this.
They shouldn't be necessary. The only reason you need one is if you have a severely broken tcp stack or an insecure server running. Don't run servers you don't need, keep up to date any that you do, and use an OS with a half-decent tcp stack and you're fine.
Doesn't seem that good a place to me. Firewalls have an inherent need for lots of configuring for anyone who is doing anything real on the internet. Motherboards and nics are not known for their ease of reconfiguring.
Take a look at this post and the reference there. With two fundamentally different hashing algorithms which both seem to be secure it might make sense, but very few modern hashes are fundamentally different, and SHA-1 is broken, so if you were going to combine it with something else you're better off just using a longer version of whatever you would combine it with.
Not fully when the two hashes share the same family, as SHA, MDx, and to a lesser extent RIPEMD all are. Doubling the length of the hash, as SHA-256 does, gives you a fully exponential increase. Combining two hashes may make sense when both are thought to be secure, but it's not a way to make a broken hash secure.
If academics have broken it by this much, how much more have the NSA broken it? They're often years ahead of the public, and a break like this is usually a sign that a full break is coming. Cracks are appearing in the wall, not big enough to be dangerous, but the fact that there are cracks is plenty of cause for concern. And the two hashes does not help, as I'm tired of explaining.
That's not what he's asking. Is the break still there, making SHA-256 under strength? Is it just a question of going to 2^149 to break it, raising the possibility of further breaks, or will it be a full 2^160 to get a collision?
I only start with ones that say that. As someone else suggested in the last thread, use a.doc or.pdf and make 2^80 versions just by putting various garbage in the comment.
Yes, because {2,3} isn't the list of all primes. However, if that were the list of all primes, as is being assumed in this proof, there could be no primes between 3 and 7.
Using multiple hashing algorithms does not increase security more than a double length version of the most secure one, in your example one of the SHA-2 variants. MD5 and SHA-1 have the same ancestry, so combining them doesn't increase security anywhere near as much as the extra bits ought to imply.
With regard to the break, the worrying thing is not that it is possible to crack SHA-1 in x years, but that it is possible to crack it 2000x as fast as should be possible. We saw things like this shortly before MD4 was fully broken, maybe someone older than me remembers the same happening with MD2 and RC4. An algorithm which is not as secure as expected should not be trusted, even if it still seems secure enough. If a bridge that was supposed to take 10 tonnes collapsed when someone tried to drive a 7-tonne truck over it, would you be happy driving your 1-tonne car over a bridge built to the same plans?
And in its basic form, the principle simply states that given at least one pidgeon all of which are in pidgeonholes and n pidgeonholes there is at least one pidgeonhole which contains at least one pidgeon.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, chess has had a big decline since Deep Blue won.
You still need to be reasonably close though, because the handicaps only go up to 9. My brother, of similar strength to me, lost by 180 not so long ago, on a 13x13 board.
Type and use the mouse with two hands like normal. Have your ipod/camera/etc on the inside of your belt or a pendant round your neck so it's in contact with your skin.
Aren't the Japanese all uptight about physical contact? Or am I stuck in 1980?
As someone above used for a joke, .arj files are a good, lesser-known compression format. Not as good as rar though. Sniff.
Once you've tried to fit 1.2gb of misc binary files on a CD you'll feel different. Seriously, rar compresses better than anything else.
No, she doesn't care about deflate ratios as such, but she does care about how many files she can fit on a floppy, so rar matters. If she didn't care about the compression, wtf would she be doing using zip at all?
In case you were serious, http://www.password-crackers.com/crack.html#ARJ
RAR is better compression, and the compression ratio is all that matters. I had 1.2gb of binaries to fit on a CD, tar+bzip2 had it at around 780mb (gzip I interrupted at around 900mb). Arj was 706, but rar did it without breaking into a sweat: 636 mb, I had enough space for feather linux as well.
I connect my computer to the internet without a firewall. Well, OK, technically it has a firewall, but the computer is in the DMZ. No problems. If your computer is not safe doing that, something is seriously wrong with it.
Perhaps the grandparent is a Debian user. In which case he could have a point.
I don't. I'm still using 2.4 series kernels, still using 1.x apache, and the day I am forced to upgrade is the day I switch OSes. I've tried 2.6 and apache 2, they don't work for me, so I put a line for each in /etc/portage/package.mask saying not to upgrade to them. I should be able to do the same thing with windows.
People complain about things which are problems for them, which is both of these. The firewall is a kludge when there are simple better solutions: stop having all those services running by default, and you get rid of the problem without breaking programs. Also, the problems with it are MS's own fault for not doing this ten years ago. Don't worry, we would have bashed them more in the long run if they hadn't done this.
They shouldn't be necessary. The only reason you need one is if you have a severely broken tcp stack or an insecure server running. Don't run servers you don't need, keep up to date any that you do, and use an OS with a half-decent tcp stack and you're fine.
Yes, I would leave ports exposed. IMO if you don't have any open ports you should be kicked off the internet.
No. If you can't safely connect the computer directly to the internet, either the computer or the OS or one of the server applications is broken.
Doesn't seem that good a place to me. Firewalls have an inherent need for lots of configuring for anyone who is doing anything real on the internet. Motherboards and nics are not known for their ease of reconfiguring.
Take a look at this post and the reference there. With two fundamentally different hashing algorithms which both seem to be secure it might make sense, but very few modern hashes are fundamentally different, and SHA-1 is broken, so if you were going to combine it with something else you're better off just using a longer version of whatever you would combine it with.
Not fully when the two hashes share the same family, as SHA, MDx, and to a lesser extent RIPEMD all are. Doubling the length of the hash, as SHA-256 does, gives you a fully exponential increase. Combining two hashes may make sense when both are thought to be secure, but it's not a way to make a broken hash secure.
If academics have broken it by this much, how much more have the NSA broken it? They're often years ahead of the public, and a break like this is usually a sign that a full break is coming. Cracks are appearing in the wall, not big enough to be dangerous, but the fact that there are cracks is plenty of cause for concern. And the two hashes does not help, as I'm tired of explaining.
That's not what he's asking. Is the break still there, making SHA-256 under strength? Is it just a question of going to 2^149 to break it, raising the possibility of further breaks, or will it be a full 2^160 to get a collision?
I only start with ones that say that. As someone else suggested in the last thread, use a .doc or .pdf and make 2^80 versions just by putting various garbage in the comment.
Yes, because {2,3} isn't the list of all primes. However, if that were the list of all primes, as is being assumed in this proof, there could be no primes between 3 and 7.
With regard to the break, the worrying thing is not that it is possible to crack SHA-1 in x years, but that it is possible to crack it 2000x as fast as should be possible. We saw things like this shortly before MD4 was fully broken, maybe someone older than me remembers the same happening with MD2 and RC4. An algorithm which is not as secure as expected should not be trusted, even if it still seems secure enough. If a bridge that was supposed to take 10 tonnes collapsed when someone tried to drive a 7-tonne truck over it, would you be happy driving your 1-tonne car over a bridge built to the same plans?
And in its basic form, the principle simply states that given at least one pidgeon all of which are in pidgeonholes and n pidgeonholes there is at least one pidgeonhole which contains at least one pidgeon.