| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:55:53 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress, and not in any technology of any kind. That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. Maybe. And maybe QC will make possible other encryption techniques. OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack, but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). All good cryptosystems are still effective if the adversary knows the algorithm. The most effective attacks aren't usually on the systems, but on the people -- e.g. getting an insider to divulge secrets. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:55:53 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress, and not in any technology of any kind. That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. Maybe. And maybe QC will make possible other encryption techniques. OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack, but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). All good cryptosystems are still effective if the adversary knows the algorithm. The most effective attacks aren't usually on the systems, but on the people -- e.g. getting an insider to divulge secrets. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
"Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. |
"Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. but you are. -------------------- More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering. Yawn. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. but you are. -------------------- More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering. Yawn. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. |
L'acrobat wrote:
"Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! -Steve -- There were atoms in the Big Bang? That should come as a surprise to science! Dave |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! -Steve -- There were atoms in the Big Bang? That should come as a surprise to science! Dave |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang. |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:14:42 +1000, L'acrobat
wrote: 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will crack a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter fool who knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:14:42 +1000, L'acrobat
wrote: 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will crack a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter fool who knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? --------------------- Yours, because it's wrong. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. ------------------------- None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. --------------------------- Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays. Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes! What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. ------------------- Irrelevant. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. ---------------------- If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then they aren't too sharp. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. -------------------------- That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself pitifully. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? --------------------- Yours, because it's wrong. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. ------------------------- None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. --------------------------- Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays. Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes! What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. ------------------- Irrelevant. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. ---------------------- If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then they aren't too sharp. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. -------------------------- That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself pitifully. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. ----------------------------- Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required, it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself. Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much and how long it takes statistically for a given key length. Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. ----------------------- You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. ----------------------------- Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required, it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself. Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much and how long it takes statistically for a given key length. Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. ----------------------- You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
John Keeney wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang. ------------ You don't even understand the math, go the **** away and be pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
John Keeney wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Fred Abse wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) ------------------------ We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the number of atoms in the big bang! Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang. ------------ You don't even understand the math, go the **** away and be pitiful. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish) ------------- Ooops, sorry, you're right, but the Lorenz was a machine that used the same basic principle as Enigma. I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000 characters a second. The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes. ------------- True, thanks for that! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish) ------------- Ooops, sorry, you're right, but the Lorenz was a machine that used the same basic principle as Enigma. I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000 characters a second. The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes. ------------- True, thanks for that! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote: No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. You forgot Bruce Schneier. And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP). ------------ Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory. And a couple others as well! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote: No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. You forgot Bruce Schneier. And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP). ------------ Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory. And a couple others as well! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? --------------------- Yours, because it's wrong. Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. ------------------------- None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it. Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. --------------------------- Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays. Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes! I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't anticipating? What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. ------------------- Irrelevant. Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. ---------------------- If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then they aren't too sharp. Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. -------------------------- That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself pitifully. Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and you know it. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user" ands so you did. --------------------------- It *IS*! If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime lengths that are do-able. We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin. We are discussing a Govt doing it. --------------- You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability of govts. And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief is more dangerous? --------------------- Yours, because it's wrong. Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong. Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe. ---------------- You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher. As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, ------------------- Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically. It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the universe. That is what you believe. you are wrong. -------------- No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons. Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they have always been wrong. ------------------------- None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it. Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon. everyone always thinks their codes are safe right up to the point that they are not safe. --------------- That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here, and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math. I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys quoted the math. --------------------------- Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice for a Nazi. He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays. Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes! I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't anticipating? What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own? playing Doom? --------------------- Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures. But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore. They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them, while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent firewall properly installed. Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'. ------------------------------------ I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion". A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs. ------------------- Irrelevant. Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked. Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'. ---------------------- If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then they aren't too sharp. Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool. Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too... --------------------------- That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not. Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot. ----------------------- Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't. And you don't even know. Pitiful. You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable. -------------------------- That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself pitifully. Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and you know it. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. ----------------------------- Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required, it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself. Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much and how long it takes statistically for a given key length. Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. ----------------------- You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you pitiful. And right. |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... L'acrobat wrote: "Fred Abse" wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote: As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key. That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world, collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one). 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines). 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested It took 1757 days. Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize from RSA Labs for the correct key. 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-) and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the task. ------------------ BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just about right. (~10^22) Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the good admirals codes. ----------------------------- Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required, it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself. Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much and how long it takes statistically for a given key length. Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math. Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being proved wrong. always. ----------------------- You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you pitiful. And right. |
|
|
L'acrobat wrote:
Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong. Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon. I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't anticipating? Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked. Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and you know it. -------------------- You have said precisely nothing contentful. You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
L'acrobat wrote:
Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong. Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon. I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't anticipating? Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked. Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and you know it. -------------------- You have said precisely nothing contentful. You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com