Re: debunking snake oil

2007-09-04 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:27:22PM -0400, Vin McLellan wrote: Thor Lancelot quoted that, and erupted with sanctimonious umbrage: I think it's important that we know, when flaws in commercial cryptographic products are being discussed, what the interests of the parties to the discussion are.

Re: debunking snake oil

2007-09-04 Thread Vin McLellan
I apologize for misstating your name, Mr. Simon. I thought I had answered your question. No one asked me to reply to Ruptor, or to you -- and you chose the tone of this exchange. As I said, I would be shocked if anyone at RSA or EMC even knows about this discussion. No one tells me what

In all the talk of super computers there is not...

2007-09-04 Thread Allen
There does not seem to be much consideration about what is computationally infeasible, even with rainbow tables. If I remember correctly an 8 character 94 key space table is about 300 MB. How big would it be if it was covering 12 characters? How long would it take to compute assuming 1,000 3

Re: Neal Koblitz critiques modern cryptography.

2007-09-04 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:35:33PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: A critique of modern cryptography by Neal Koblitz in Notices of the AMS: http://www.ams.org/notices/200708/tx070800972p.pdf The way I read it, it is a critique of the (somewhat inevitable) poor quality of peer-review for

Re: Neal Koblitz critiques modern cryptography.

2007-09-04 Thread James A. Donald
Victor Duchovni wrote: This part is not too radical. The more specific skepticism of security proofs (I am reluctant to agree that these are actively harmful), seems to be a combination of the peer review issue above, and (often?) lack of tight bounds that make the proofs applicable to