The more interesting point is high vs low latency. I really like the
idea of having a high-latency option in Tor. It would still need to
have a lot of users to actually be useful, though. But it seems there
are various protocols that would be ore high-latency-friendly than
HTTP - SMTP, of
Given those shortcomings I think is not wise to recommend it unless your
enemy doesn't have the resources of a country. That being said, it's the
best tool at the moment, lights year ahead of other popular software
like
Cryptocat, whose end-point security should be considered not only
The fastest hardware implementation of RC4 that I know is 2 bytes/clock. I
personally programmed a 1 byte/clock RC4 in a FPGA, it's quite simple.
At 2 bytes/clock you still need a clock of 10 gigahertz to encrypt 100
Gbps. That's unfeasible, the way it's done is using paralelism, then you
can use
I believe Anonymity is a problem orders of magnitude bigger than privacy.
Tor seems like the only serious project aiming at solving it but I think
you should be wise by choosing your enemies and Tor in its current state
is useless against government-type surveillance for the following reasongs
Oops, miscalculation. That should be a 6.5 Ghz clock for 100 Gbps. ((100
Gbps/8)/2) . Anyway I don't think anybody has hardware that fast except
maybe for IBM with the Power8.
The fastest hardware implementation of RC4 that I know is 2 bytes/clock. I
personally programmed a 1 byte/clock RC4 in
There is already too much hype over QKD. It's unbreakable (if you pay
no attention to all those vulnerabilities at the physical layer that can
be exploited by attackers anywhere in between the encrypter and the
decrypter).
David
But software crypto algorithms suffer from the same
