These things can't (yet) be done effectively on consumer hardware.
Ah contraire!
Factoring 768-bit RSA keys can't (yet) be done effectively on comsumer hardware, but it is extremely practical for 512-bit keys. TI graphing calculator hackers did it with the donated CPU time of a handful of hobbists. And they did it 12 or so times in a matter of months.
Factorization is still hard. Factorization of 768-bit keys can't (yet) be done effectively on consumer hardware.
And Caesar Ciphers are EXTREMELY secure against elementary school children when the information you are protecting only has a useful lifespan of a few minutes.
You point, while correct, is irrelevant to my point.
I did not mean to imply that there is only a single valid definition of break in cryptography. It is general knowledge that not all cryptographic attacks are practical. However, that does not mean that practical breaks cannot also be cryptographic breaks.
As you indicated, there are many kinds of cryptographic attacks. Some of them are practical, others are not. Some of them only apply to ciphers when they are used in certain modes. Others only work if an often unreasonable amount of information is already known about the ciphertext or plaintext.
RSA factoring is a rather "crude" attack that only works when the keysize is small. Nevertheless, it is in fact a cryptographic attack. It is also far more complex and efficient than a straightforward bruteforce attack. The purpose of this story was to inform the reader that RSA factoring should now also be considered a practical attack for larger keysizes than it was previously known to be.
In short, there is an RSA break, as we have always known, but it is only practical for small keys. The definition of "small keys" has just been updated.
I find it weird that people keep on quoting the 5 TB stat as one of the reasons this isn't anything to be worried about. With a few hundered dollars, and a 5 minute drive, I can pick up 5TB of storage right now at Walmart.
Hey, here is an idea: Quit complaining about people complaining.
A. I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family. B. Ride any good rides? A. Yeah, that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome. B. Aw man, I can't do those things, they make me throw up every time.
Same fucking concept. Now, if person B in this situation annoyed you, then you are a jackass.
That is like saying RSA-16 (if such a thing existed) is not broken because the fasted way of cracking it is factorization. Brute force is a legitimate form of cryptoanalysis, particularly when it is computationally feasible. Calling an encryption scheme "broken" when an attack such as this is demonstrated is quite reasonable, no matter how inelegant you may find the attack.
Suggesting that DES is not broken is very silly because "not being broken" implies on some level that it is still acceptable to use.
The very short version of it is that a private key is a set of two very large prime numbers. The public key is these two prime numbers multiplied together. If you have the public key, and are able to factor it, you can determine the private key.
The security of RSA relies on the assumption that integer factorization is hard. So far that assumption, at least publically, has not been shown false (unless you have a quantum computer).
Your history is a bit rusty. The Church of England is protestant, but not all protestants are affiliated with the Church of England (nor where the original protestants for that matter).
SMTP is not broken. SMTP was never supposed to provide authentication of identity, and nobody with the slightest of technical knowledge has ever expected it too.
I agree with you, within limitation. Humanity has no point other than attempting to understand the universe. However, individuals can lead happy lives while completely ignoring those issues. Not everyone gets off on science.
If you're not familar with this concept, then I suggest you go get laid.;)
Unfortunately, not reading TFA is pretty par for the course here. Comments like this get modded up because often the moderators haven't RTFA either. "Playing a martyr to get easy modpoints" seems to be getting pretty popular as well. (note: I'm not accusing the GP of karma whoring... at least intentionally)
Wow, you seem terribly defensive over what is a pretty reasonable question. This is slashdot, you are allowed to ask things here...
Anyways, from what I understand (and this is in no way my field), they usually date these sorts of things by observing what kind of geological features are on top. If a crater has numerous smaller craters in it, then you know the larger crater is older. With the crater distribution they can make pretty reasonable estimates about the age of something. Similar methods techniques could use other forms of erosion.
Dating like this obviously isn't exact, and you'd have to ask a geologist for more details on the accuracy and techniques. For that matter, I haven't read TFA so I don't know that this is exactly how it was done. If you are really curious, I suggest you RTFA, and read any papers these scientists have/will release on their findings.
In such cases, it is better to use an open network. In reality, both are open for all intents and purposes, but WEP provides a false sense of security.
I suggest checking out some of his short story collections, they are really quite good while being easy to digest. Not all of his works are as long as The Stand;)
No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed.
If the toxicity of noble gasses really concerns you that much then A) You don't know shit about noble gasses, B) You are desperately grasping at things to bitch about because you are a fanatic and no amount of logic and science will ever change your mind, or C) both A and B. The toxicity of noble gases has of course been studied before, and there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, particularly in the levels you are talking about (we're talking homeopathic concentrations here...)
Coal plants emit un-enriched natural elements
I have some all natural arsenic for you to eat. Or maybe you would prefer some nice, all natural, hemlock?
Seriously though, very little good ever comes out of engadget, their technical writing is an embarassment, making slashdot summaries look like fucking shakespeare. Not to mention they probably have one of the heaviest websites that I know of, how many megabytes am I supposed to download just to read some shitty article? It's basically all that is wrong with slashdot, distilled, then magnified.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends entirely on how much more efficient these new algorithms may be.
Ah contraire!
Factoring 768-bit RSA keys can't (yet) be done effectively on comsumer hardware, but it is extremely practical for 512-bit keys. TI graphing calculator hackers did it with the donated CPU time of a handful of hobbists. And they did it 12 or so times in a matter of months.
That is a more accurate statement.
And Caesar Ciphers are EXTREMELY secure against elementary school children when the information you are protecting only has a useful lifespan of a few minutes.
You point, while correct, is irrelevant to my point.
I did not mean to imply that there is only a single valid definition of break in cryptography. It is general knowledge that not all cryptographic attacks are practical. However, that does not mean that practical breaks cannot also be cryptographic breaks.
As you indicated, there are many kinds of cryptographic attacks. Some of them are practical, others are not. Some of them only apply to ciphers when they are used in certain modes. Others only work if an often unreasonable amount of information is already known about the ciphertext or plaintext.
RSA factoring is a rather "crude" attack that only works when the keysize is small. Nevertheless, it is in fact a cryptographic attack. It is also far more complex and efficient than a straightforward bruteforce attack. The purpose of this story was to inform the reader that RSA factoring should now also be considered a practical attack for larger keysizes than it was previously known to be.
In short, there is an RSA break, as we have always known, but it is only practical for small keys. The definition of "small keys" has just been updated.
Well yeah of course, that is where the supercomputers and several years of number crunching comes in.
On a semi-related note, I still haven't been able to fill my 320GB harddrive with all of my torrenting :o I honestly don't know how people do it.
I find it weird that people keep on quoting the 5 TB stat as one of the reasons this isn't anything to be worried about. With a few hundered dollars, and a 5 minute drive, I can pick up 5TB of storage right now at Walmart.
For the best reading experiance, imagine the post above is responding to a comment about color televisions.
Hey, here is an idea: Quit complaining about people complaining.
A. I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family.
B. Ride any good rides?
A. Yeah, that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome.
B. Aw man, I can't do those things, they make me throw up every time.
Same fucking concept. Now, if person B in this situation annoyed you, then you are a jackass.
That is like saying RSA-16 (if such a thing existed) is not broken because the fasted way of cracking it is factorization. Brute force is a legitimate form of cryptoanalysis, particularly when it is computationally feasible. Calling an encryption scheme "broken" when an attack such as this is demonstrated is quite reasonable, no matter how inelegant you may find the attack.
Suggesting that DES is not broken is very silly because "not being broken" implies on some level that it is still acceptable to use.
The very short version of it is that a private key is a set of two very large prime numbers. The public key is these two prime numbers multiplied together. If you have the public key, and are able to factor it, you can determine the private key.
The security of RSA relies on the assumption that integer factorization is hard. So far that assumption, at least publically, has not been shown false (unless you have a quantum computer).
Your history is a bit rusty. The Church of England is protestant, but not all protestants are affiliated with the Church of England (nor where the original protestants for that matter).
But hey, who can be bothered with details?
SMTP is not broken. SMTP was never supposed to provide authentication of identity, and nobody with the slightest of technical knowledge has ever expected it too.
That is why anyone who cares uses PGP/GPG.
I'd woosh you, but I suspect I'd have to woosh you a second time, for not even getting what I meant by "woosh".
I know for a fact that Quake 3 did that (125fps is ideal for trickjumping mods like Defragged). The previous Quakes no doubt did it too.
I agree with you, within limitation. Humanity has no point other than attempting to understand the universe. However, individuals can lead happy lives while completely ignoring those issues. Not everyone gets off on science.
If you're not familar with this concept, then I suggest you go get laid. ;)
You must be new here... ;)
Unfortunately, not reading TFA is pretty par for the course here. Comments like this get modded up because often the moderators haven't RTFA either. "Playing a martyr to get easy modpoints" seems to be getting pretty popular as well. (note: I'm not accusing the GP of karma whoring... at least intentionally)
Wow, you seem terribly defensive over what is a pretty reasonable question. This is slashdot, you are allowed to ask things here...
Anyways, from what I understand (and this is in no way my field), they usually date these sorts of things by observing what kind of geological features are on top. If a crater has numerous smaller craters in it, then you know the larger crater is older. With the crater distribution they can make pretty reasonable estimates about the age of something. Similar methods techniques could use other forms of erosion.
Dating like this obviously isn't exact, and you'd have to ask a geologist for more details on the accuracy and techniques. For that matter, I haven't read TFA so I don't know that this is exactly how it was done. If you are really curious, I suggest you RTFA, and read any papers these scientists have/will release on their findings.
In such cases, it is better to use an open network. In reality, both are open for all intents and purposes, but WEP provides a false sense of security.
That alone should be considered criminal negligance.
I suggest checking out some of his short story collections, they are really quite good while being easy to digest. Not all of his works are as long as The Stand ;)
If the toxicity of noble gasses really concerns you that much then A) You don't know shit about noble gasses, B) You are desperately grasping at things to bitch about because you are a fanatic and no amount of logic and science will ever change your mind, or C) both A and B. The toxicity of noble gases has of course been studied before, and there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, particularly in the levels you are talking about (we're talking homeopathic concentrations here...)
I have some all natural arsenic for you to eat. Or maybe you would prefer some nice, all natural, hemlock?
Wow, way to miss the point.
You can't do that with the kindle.
*head kersplodes*
Fixed that for ya.
Seriously though, very little good ever comes out of engadget, their technical writing is an embarassment, making slashdot summaries look like fucking shakespeare. Not to mention they probably have one of the heaviest websites that I know of, how many megabytes am I supposed to download just to read some shitty article? It's basically all that is wrong with slashdot, distilled, then magnified.
I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.