Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then again, if you're looking for sheer, brute performance and design cycle
times are not a limiting factor, ASICs are often the way to go. Even in a
Variola Suitcase, however, I'd bet some of the trivial functions are
off-loaded to an FPGA, though, for
to an FPGA, though, for reasons above.
-TD
From: Riad S. Wahby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:26:48 -0600
Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, maybe I misunderstand your statement here, but in Telecom most
heavy
iron has plenty of FPGAs
Well, what would you call a network processor? An FPGA or a CPU? I think of
it as somewhere in between, given credence to the FPGA statement below.
-TD
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 06:51:24
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:53:53PM +, Dave Howe wrote:
I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel
free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :)
FPGAs are too slow (and too expensive), if you want lots of SHA-1 performance,
use a crypto processor
- Original Message -
From: Dave Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Indeed so. however, the argument in 1998, a FPGA machine broke a DES
key in 72 hours, therefore TODAY... assumes that (a) the problems are
comparable, and (b) that moores law has been applied to FPGAs
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I believe you substantially misunderstood my statements, 2^69 work is
doable _now_. 2^55 work was performed in 72 hours in 1998, scaling
forward the 7 years to the present (and hence through known data) leads
to a situation where the 2^69 work is achievable today in a
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:53:53PM +, Dave Howe wrote:
I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel
free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :)
FPGAs are too slow (and too expensive), if you want lots of SHA-1
performance,
use a
- Original Message -
From: Dave Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge II was broken in 72 hours
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Howe
Sent: Thu 2/17/2005 5:49 AM
To: Cypherpunks; Cryptography
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge II was broken in 72 hours by
$250,000 worth of semi-custom machine, for the sake of solidity let's
assume they used 2^55 work to break it. Now moving to a
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:55:15AM -0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
From: Serguei Osokine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peer-to-peer development. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [p2p-hackers] SHA1 broken?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:11:07 -0800
Okay, so the effective SHA-1 length is 138 bits instead
--
There is however a huge problem replace SHA-1 by something
else from now to tomorrow: Other algorithms are not as well
anaylyzed and compared against SHA-1 as for example AES to
DES are; so there is no immediate successor of SHA-1 of whom
we can be sure to withstand the possible new
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:13:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Atom Smasher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP: id=0xB88D52E4D9F57808; algo=1 (RSA); size=4096;
url=http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN
- Original Message -
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
2^69 is damn near unbreakable.
I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge II was broken in 72 hours by
$250,000 worth of semi
On 1108637369 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Dave Howe wrote:
Its fine assuming that moore's law will hold forever, but without
that you can't really extrapolate a future tech curve. with *todays*
technology, you would have to spend an appreciable fraction of the
national
15 matches
Mail list logo
