It means you only have to test 2^119 possible keys to break 256-bit AES - still far beyond what's ever going to be feasible (do the math - give everybody on the planet a million PCs running at 1THz and see how long it takes to do 2^119 things, then figure out where you're going to get that much electricity from)
Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES. Everybody (like me) who thought the 256-bit and 192-bit were a waste of time now has a reason to be smug about it.
Reason: Both AES-192 and AES-256 are just AES-128 internally but they mess around with the key data between each loop of the encryption process. The new attack only works on the "messing around" part of the process so AES-128 is unaffected.
That's not it either....
Before the update there was a "close" button on the last tab. Clicking it would make the page go away (good for stopping annoying sound or whatever). Now it's gone, and it's annoying me.
Will it fix the belief that there's people out there who think in HTML tags?
What's next? Automatic conversion to SMS-speak so us old fogies can look trendy...
A bit of tinfoil over the GPS antenna should do the trick... I'm sure terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers will soon learn to game the system and come up with "The GPS Defense".
Here's what a games publisher sees when he reads that article:
"yada yada yada yada yada yada 100 million copies yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada."
Huh? Pilots don't spend *any* time trying to fix computer problems. This isn't Windows. There's no "patch Tuesday" which would install updates and force you to restart half way through a flight. There's no CD to try reinstalling the flight software when the 'plane starts to wobble.
Any aircraft can do it if the pilot is good enough.
b) The article is the one pointing the finger at the machines, nowhere do I see it pointing at the piece of meat who decided to fly through the middle of an enormous thundercloud.
>I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. This video doesn't prove anything.
It clearly shows how many computers are on board, it clearly states that any one of them can fly the entire aircraft, it clearly says that the aircraft is designed so that all five of them cannot fail at once (ie. the aircraft would be in little pieces before that happened). It shows that you can switch computers off and still fly.
All of these Pesky Facts disagree with the article's description of the pilots struggling to reboot the computers on the way down.
Hey, but don't let that stop you frothing at the mouth and completely missing the point, because it's only a simulator (well duh!)
What it DOES show is that the article is rubbish. Airbus don't have "primary" and "secondary" computers. It also shows that Airbus can fly without the flight computers (if the computers fail the systems switch to alternate law as detailed here: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm )
How does this show that real A320s don't have five flight computers or that any one of them can fly the plane or that a crew would never be under the table trying to 'reboot' them?
"you can see the border of the simulator room projection screen outside of the cockpit"
Really? I thought it was the pilot *saying* it's a simulator that gave the game away.
Airbus' can have direct (ie' 'manual') control, no problem. Just flip a couple of switches.
Thing is, it wouldn't help. At 31000 feet there's only a 25 knot difference between 'stall' and 'supersonic' (both are bad) so you really really really need to know your airspeed (this applies to any aircraft, not just fly-by wire).
If weather conditions were so bad that all three airspeed measuring devices failed then maybe it *was* a bad idea to fly through the middle of a massive thundercloud.
I'm pretty sure the real fault wasn't the machines, it was a human deciding to ignore the onboard weather radar and fly through the middle of a huge thundercloud.
Any belief that Airbus pilots are somehow under the communist thumb and that square-jawed Boeing pilots would heave manfully at the controls and save the say is, um, 100% laughable.
FTA: "...the crew apparently shut down or tried to reboot their primary and secondary computer systems."
Where do they get this garbage? Do they make it up based on their experience with Windows ME?
FWIW, Airbus have *five* flight computers (not "primary" and "secondary") and any one of them can fly the 'plane. If they're all gone then the aircraft is already in little bits so no, you wouldn't ever be under the dashboard trying to 'reboot' them instead of flying (whatever 'reboot' means - they're designed to reboot themselves under a watchdog timer).
Which part of "today's level of consumption is not sustainable" is confusing you? Something has to give and it really shouldn't be the closed biosphere we depend on for life.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm reading the paper correctly, it appears that AES-128 is unaffected. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)
It means you only have to test 2^119 possible keys to break 256-bit AES - still far beyond what's ever going to be feasible (do the math - give everybody on the planet a million PCs running at 1THz and see how long it takes to do 2^119 things, then figure out where you're going to get that much electricity from)
Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES. Everybody (like me) who thought the 256-bit and 192-bit were a waste of time now has a reason to be smug about it.
Reason: Both AES-192 and AES-256 are just AES-128 internally but they mess around with the key data between each loop of the encryption process. The new attack only works on the "messing around" part of the process so AES-128 is unaffected.
That's not it either.... Before the update there was a "close" button on the last tab. Clicking it would make the page go away (good for stopping annoying sound or whatever). Now it's gone, and it's annoying me.
Will it fix the belief that there's people out there who think in HTML tags? What's next? Automatic conversion to SMS-speak so us old fogies can look trendy...
Try taking away his cigarettes!
A bit of tinfoil over the GPS antenna should do the trick... I'm sure terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers will soon learn to game the system and come up with "The GPS Defense".
The new benchmark in Javascript performance - slashdot.
...and I wonder if it will be powerful enough to get the line breaks right in "plain text" mode so I don't have to insert "br" tags manually.
Here's what a games publisher sees when he reads that article: "yada yada yada yada yada yada 100 million copies yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada."
Um, the article says "both ends are Windows" so rsync isn't standard. I think he'll need robocopy ("RObust COPY") instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
It's a free download from Microsoft.
] "... might be overweight - or they might have lots of muscle."
Or they might just be taller/shorter than average.
BMI only works if you're five foot nine. If you're outside of that 'range' it's junk.
Um, yes ... but we could use a better formula than BMI (ie. one that works) and get even better results. Tada!
BMI is junk math. Film at 11.
No seriously, it is. People are three dimensional and BMI is only 2D - it doesn't account for increase in 'thickness' as people get taller/shorter.
Huh? Pilots don't spend *any* time trying to fix computer problems. This isn't Windows. There's no "patch Tuesday" which would install updates and force you to restart half way through a flight. There's no CD to try reinstalling the flight software when the 'plane starts to wobble.
"what do you do when the computer does not believe there is a fault condition. "
Simple... switch the computer off!
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KygSyVE58
Let's see:
a) A barrel roll can be a 1g maneuver, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY
Any aircraft can do it if the pilot is good enough.
b) The article is the one pointing the finger at the machines, nowhere do I see it pointing at the piece of meat who decided to fly through the middle of an enormous thundercloud.
>I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. This video doesn't prove anything.
It clearly shows how many computers are on board, it clearly states that any one of them can fly the entire aircraft, it clearly says that the aircraft is designed so that all five of them cannot fail at once (ie. the aircraft would be in little pieces before that happened). It shows that you can switch computers off and still fly.
All of these Pesky Facts disagree with the article's description of the pilots struggling to reboot the computers on the way down.
Hey, but don't let that stop you frothing at the mouth and completely missing the point, because it's only a simulator (well duh!)
What it DOES show is that the article is rubbish. Airbus don't have "primary" and "secondary" computers. It also shows that Airbus can fly without the flight computers (if the computers fail the systems switch to alternate law as detailed here: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm )
Yep.
How does this show that real A320s don't have five flight computers or that any one of them can fly the plane or that a crew would never be under the table trying to 'reboot' them?
"you can see the border of the simulator room projection screen outside of the cockpit"
Really? I thought it was the pilot *saying* it's a simulator that gave the game away.
Airbus' can have direct (ie' 'manual') control, no problem. Just flip a couple of switches.
Thing is, it wouldn't help. At 31000 feet there's only a 25 knot difference between 'stall' and 'supersonic' (both are bad) so you really really really need to know your airspeed (this applies to any aircraft, not just fly-by wire).
If weather conditions were so bad that all three airspeed measuring devices failed then maybe it *was* a bad idea to fly through the middle of a massive thundercloud.
I'm pretty sure the real fault wasn't the machines, it was a human deciding to ignore the onboard weather radar and fly through the middle of a huge thundercloud.
This video shows an Airbus pilot switching off the flight computers then barrel rolling an A320:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KygSyVE58
Any belief that Airbus pilots are somehow under the communist thumb and that square-jawed Boeing pilots would heave manfully at the controls and save the say is, um, 100% laughable.
FTA: "...the crew apparently shut down or tried to reboot their primary and secondary computer systems."
Where do they get this garbage? Do they make it up based on their experience with Windows ME?
FWIW, Airbus have *five* flight computers (not "primary" and "secondary") and any one of them can fly the 'plane. If they're all gone then the aircraft is already in little bits so no, you wouldn't ever be under the dashboard trying to 'reboot' them instead of flying (whatever 'reboot' means - they're designed to reboot themselves under a watchdog timer).
That's why we invented wheelbarrows! (...so the Irish could learn to walk on their hind legs - ba-doom-crassh).
Space ships bank when turning because it stop your Earl Grey from spilling all over the console.
You'd think people complaining in a physics thread would know some.
Observation: It started happening when gas hit $4....if gas prices hadn't fallen who knows what would happen to the gas guzzlers of the world.
Which part of "today's level of consumption is not sustainable" is confusing you? Something has to give and it really shouldn't be the closed biosphere we depend on for life.