You don't think I considered it? Really? You think that I would go through the trouble of designing and implenting a standards based encrytion application without considering that it could be cracked?
You are incorrect. I certainly considered it. I just know that when brute forcing AES256 becomes feasible, a scan of mynpssport will be the last thing on anyone mind. How does this differ from SSL, and why do you think I would have to be "live on the wire" to crack it? If your entire argument is "it can be cracked at some point" then you argue against *any* type of encrytion. Postulative statements in the obvious are a waste of people's time. T On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:23 AM, lsi <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Jun 2010 at 11:51, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> Ancient crypto? You really have no effing clue, do you? >>> >>> Whatever you use today, it will be ancient in 5 years. >> >> PGP came out when? 1991. Will be a quarter century old in 5 years. > > DES is the first example I can think of. Folks did believe in that. > Pity it's crackable. Pity even more those who believed in it, then > posted their passport encrypted with it, to a security list... > >> Amazingly enough, they're all pretty much still going strong - mostly > > So you mean that some of them aren't going strong, then? Did they > get cracked, by any chance? Did I mention DES yet? > >> because the crypto field moves pretty damned slowly. The general >> philosophy in crypto isn't "It will be ancient in 5 years", it's "we >> won't even trust it for live deployment until good people have bashed >> it for a decade". > > Good people will find flaws. However they cannot stop brute-forcing, > which is viable in some circumstances, and as time passes this > viability increases. This increase is not the same as Moore's Law, > if you have a parallel platform you are not limited by linear growth > in CPU power, you just add more CPUs. As it happens parallel > platforms are great for brute-forcing, did I mention DES, which was > cracked by a machine with 1856 processors? > >>> Even if nobody finds a weakness in the algorithm you used, 5 years >>> from now I will probably have enough spare CPU to brute-force it >>> using my mobile phone.... >> >> Moore's Law doesn't move *that* fast. > > I was joking (but only half-joking). > >> And what good drugs are you on that you think a cell phone >> processor 5 >> years from now will have the CPU power that current moby-cluster >> supercomputers have? > > I'm not saying that, I'm saying that in 5 years, the currently > infeasible will be feasible. No, I don't think that's a surprise > either, but I don't think Tim has considered it. > > Stu > > --- > Stuart Udall > stuart [email protected] net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ > > --- > * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
