On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Jack Lloyd<ll...@randombit.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:29:30AM +1000, silky wrote:
> > A potentially amusing/silly solution would be to have one strong key
> > that you change monthly, and then, encrypt *that* key, with a method
> > that will be brute-forceable in 2 months and make it public. As long
> > as you are constantly changing your key, no-one will decrypt it in
> > time, but assuming you do die, they can potentially decrypt it while
> > arranging your funeral :)
>
> This method would not work terribly well for data at rest. Copy the
> ciphertext, start the brute force process, and two months later you
> get out everything, regardless of the fact that in the meantime the
> data was reencrypted.

Indeed, hence the reason I suggested encrypting only your "real" key
with this method. By the time you're done decrypting that, you've only
gotten a stale key. Of course the approach isn't really practical in
principle, it's only cute.


> -Jack

-- 
noon silky
http://lets.coozi.com.au/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majord...@metzdowd.com

Reply via email to