On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 04:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the latest news on Adelman's cryptological
soup? Once his DNA crypto was touted as a
substantial breakthrough for crypto, though since
overshadowed by quantum crypto smoke-blowing.
On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 08:55 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
How do you all see the future use of biologically based systems
affecting cryptography in general?
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the latest news on Adelman's cryptological
soup? Once his DNA crypto was touted as a
substantial breakthrough for crypto, though since
overshadowed by quantum crypto smoke-blowing.
DNA computes
At 02:18 AM 01/03/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 08:55 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
People do break cyphers, by finding weaknesses in them. Are you saying
that you think that current cyphers are unbreakable?
You know not whereof you speak.
Breaking RSA or similar
I see that you're entirely correct. I've read about half of Scheiner's
applied cryptography, and I'm familiar with the fact that current
algorithms' strength is based on factoring large primes, and familiar
with his estimates of 10^11 years for a 112 bit key, (given the caveat
of no new scifi
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:39:45AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 02:18 AM 01/03/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 08:55 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
People do break cyphers, by finding weaknesses in them. Are you saying
that you think that current cyphers are
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 08:39 AM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
I see that you're entirely correct. I've read about half of Scheiner's
applied cryptography, and I'm familiar with the fact that current
algorithms' strength is based on factoring large primes,
Factoring large primes is easy.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
How do you all see the future use of biologically based systems
affecting cryptography in general?
By biologically based systems I mean machine learning, genetic
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Michael Cardenas wrote:
People do break cyphers, by finding weaknesses in them. Are you saying
that you think that current cyphers are unbreakable?
People break cyphers by
1) cryptoanalysis (mostly brain, a bit of muscle)
2) brute force (no brain at all, pure muscle)
So
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Michael Cardenas wrote:
People do break cyphers, by finding weaknesses in them. Are you saying
that you think that current cyphers are unbreakable?
Also, what about using biological systems to create strong cyphers,
not to break them?
We do pretty good already don't we
At 08:55 PM 1/1/03 -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
...
Strong crypto is, ipso facto, resistant to all of the above. For the
obvious reason that the specific solution to a cipher is like a Dirac
delta function (a spike) rising above a
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the latest news on Adelman's cryptological
soup? Once his DNA crypto was touted as a
substantial breakthrough for crypto, though since
overshadowed by quantum crypto smoke-blowing.
DNA computes very slowly; it's bound by viscous drag and
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Michael Cardenas wrote:
How do you all see the future use of biologically based systems
affecting cryptography in general?
As Tim pointed out, barring some incredible breakthrough, such systems are
unlikely to affect cryptography at all. You may be interested to see that
What's the latest news on Adelman's cryptological
soup? Once his DNA crypto was touted as a
substantial breakthrough for crypto, though since
overshadowed by quantum crypto smoke-blowing.
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/crypto/1999-q4/0257.html
Isn't it a given that crypto is never free
How do you all see the future use of biologically based systems
affecting cryptography in general?
By biologically based systems I mean machine learning, genetic
algorithms, chips that learn (like Carver Mead's work), neural
networks, vecor support machines, associative memory, etc.
It seems to
At 11:41 AM 12/31/2002 -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote:
I only ask this because I'm deciding whether to
study computational neuroscience or cryptography in grad school.
Are you planning to get a PhD and/or do research,
or just a terminal master's degree to do engineering?
If you're planning to
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
How do you all see the future use of biologically based systems
affecting cryptography in general?
By biologically based systems I mean machine learning, genetic
algorithms, chips that learn (like Carver Mead's work), neural
17 matches
Mail list logo
