To add to the reference, a preprint is available online at
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/arch/prime.discrete.logs.pdf
A companion paper that was used crucially in the solution, "Solving
large sparse linear systems over finite fields," pp. 109-133 in
"Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO '90,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:50:06 -0700
Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > | Which is by the way exactly the case with SecureIM. How
> > > | hard is it to brute-force 128-bit DH ? My "guesstimate"
> > > | is it's an order of minutes or even seconds, depending
> > > | on CPU resources.
>
> | Which is by the way exactly the case with SecureIM. How
> | hard is it to brute-force 128-bit DH ? My "guesstimate"
> | is it's an order of minutes or even seconds, depending
> | on CPU resources.
Sun's "Secure NFS" product from the 1980s had 192-bit Diffie-Hellman,
and a comment in one of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why bother with all this? There is OTP for gaim, and it works just fine
(not to mention it comes from a definitely clueful source).
/ji
I meant, of course, OTR (off-the-record). And to think that I was using
it in another window as I was typing this!
Thanks to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leichter, Jerry
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: Alex Pankratov
> Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
> Subject: RE: Trillian Secure IM
>
> | > But, opportuni
> -Original Message-
> From: pgut001 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
> Subject: Re: Trillian Secure IM
>
> Marcos el Ruptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
Marcos el Ruptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I found those threads:
>
>http://forums.ceruleanstudios.com/showthread.php?t=53433
>
>http://forums.ceruleanstudios.com/showthread.php?t=56207
One of them contains a link to an older thread:
http://www.ceruleanstudios.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&thr
Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> "Alex Pankratov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> SecureIM handshake between two version 3.1 (latest) clients takes about ..
>>> 48
>>> bytes. That's altogether, 32 bytes in one direction, and 16 in another. And
>>> that's between the clien
Why bother with all this? There is OTP for gaim, and it works just fine
(not to mention it comes from a definitely clueful source).
/ji
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMA
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:17:48 -0700
"Alex Pankratov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am actually curious to see what was the DH modulus size in
> T's versions that were blocked by AOL. Given T's installation
> base, strong SecureIM would've dramatically complicated "lawful
> intercepts", which AO
| > But, opportunistic cryptography is even more fun. It is
| > very encouraging to see projects implement cryptography in
| > limited forms. A system that uses a primitive form of
| > encryption is many orders of magnitude more secure than a
| > system that implements none.
|
| Primitive fo
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcos el Ruptor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:21 AM
> To: Alex Pankratov
> Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
> Subject: Re: Trillian Secure IM
>
> I found those threads:
>
> http://forums.cerule
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:05 AM
> To: Peter Gutmann
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cryptography@metzdowd.com
> Subject: Re: Trillian Secure IM
>
> Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > "Alex Pa
Marcos el Ruptor wrote:
If that's DH exchange, then it's 128 bit one. Fertile ground
for some interesting speculation, don't you think ?
There is no speculation. It is 128-bit DH.
I have reported over three years ago to the Trillian forum that they are
using 128-bit DH and that it is not secu
I found those threads:
http://forums.ceruleanstudios.com/showthread.php?t=53433
http://forums.ceruleanstudios.com/showthread.php?t=56207
As you can see from the last post in the second thread, ultimately
they agreed that 128-bit DH is secure and that I am just some crazy
guy trying to scare
If that's DH exchange, then it's 128 bit one. Fertile ground
for some interesting speculation, don't you think ?
There is no speculation. It is 128-bit DH.
I have reported over three years ago to the Trillian forum that they
are using 128-bit DH and that it is not secure. You can look up my
"Alex Pankratov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>SecureIM handshake between two version 3.1 (latest) clients takes about .. 48
>bytes. That's altogether, 32 bytes in one direction, and 16 in another. And
>that's between the clients that have never talked to each other before, so
>there's no "session
17 matches
Mail list logo
