On Wednesday, January 4, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
In my personal opinion, I think, the weakest link is entering the
password when opening a svnd device. Are there already solutions known
which combine passwords (knowledge) with hardware devices (i.e.
smartcards) or biometrics in order to
On 12/31/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Nazis thought their Enigma machine was perfect.
Do you know why Enigma was broken? Primarily because the operators
didn't follow procedure and made a series of other mistakes (This
doesn't seem too important). As is typical, the problem
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/31/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Nazis thought their Enigma machine was perfect.
Do you know why Enigma was broken? Primarily because the operators
didn't follow procedure and made a series of other mistakes (This
doesn't seem too important). As is
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/31/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Nazis thought their Enigma machine was perfect.
Do you know why Enigma was broken? Primarily because the operators
didn't follow procedure and made a series of other mistakes (This
doesn't seem too important). As
On 1/3/06, Sebastian Rother [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blowfish is secure but Twofish is faster and as secure as Blowfish.
wrong. apples are as fast as tables. bluefish encrypts faster than twofish.
don't know about rekeying etc.
At least if there some quant. computers 128Bit will not save ya
http://www.onlamp.com/lpt/a/6384
Inside NetBSD's CGD
by Federico Biancuzzi
12/21/2005
OpenBSD didn't import CGD even if Ted Unangst wrote a port some time ago. Do
you think
OpenBSD's svnd is already offering the same features?
RD: In a sense, OpenBSD's svnd appears to offer some of the same
Hi,
knitti wrote:
...
At least if there some quant. computers 128Bit will not save ya day
anymore.
quantum computers are the real big buzzword to scare people into
irrational behaviour. nobody knows whether or when quantum computer
will be able to brute force 128 bit keys. and whether twofish
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:40:26PM +0100, Sebastian Rother wrote:
Yes OpenBSD uses Blowfish and yes it si secure and YES it could be blf
with 448Bit. But OpenBSD uses (as far as I know) just 128Bit.
This is not true, vnconfig does read a maximum of 128 bytes (1024bit) and
the key can not be
Andreas Bartelt wrote:
...
Bruce Schneier recommends using 256 bit keys in order to achieve 128 bit
overall strength for a symmetric cipher. You can read it in 'applied
cryptography'. The reason for this recommendation is related to
collision attacks.
oops, typo. It's in the newer book
please cut the trolling.
the problem is not, whether or not blowfish is secure enough.
the problem is that you HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking
about, category-wise. you can't tell why blowfish could be bad. you
can't tell which one would be better, because you don't know why.
you can't
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 11:26:50PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
Well I was contemplating the error of my ways on this thread. I realized
that I was wrong. Blowfish's implementation is secure and efficient...
from a programmer's point of view.
This can be applied to cryptography, and for my
Original message
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:39:02 +0100
From: Said Outgajjouft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blowfish still good enough?
To: misc@openbsd.org
Travies all crypto is breakable. The only demand on crypto is how long
in takes to break it. If it takes more than 5 years
On Sunday 01 January 2006 05:26, Joachim Schipper wrote:
You are right, *if* your data is of such a nature that it needs to be
kept secret for tens, likely hundreds of years. In that case,
however, extending the vnd(4) device to use, at least, AES as well
should be easy. (Not that I've looked
I certainly hope that if new ciphers are added to
svnd, that Blowfish is still included. Many of my
previous file systems use Blowfish, and it is my
preferred algorithm.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. Blowfish has
been extensively analyzed since 1993. It is believed
to be secure.
As far as the 64 bit blocks go: most solid encryption
programs generally use a block chaining mode, to group
multiple blocks together. Encrypt one block, XOR it
with the next,
Well I was contemplating the error of my ways on this thread. I realized
that I was wrong. Blowfish's implementation is secure and efficient...
from a programmer's point of view.
A few hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the
universe.
Then we knew that the most basic
Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My concern is the strength of Blowfish--it's robustness--if someone with
a large amount of resources desired to crack it.
You mention that twofish is faster than blowfish. So, you would rather
make a brute force password attack easier?
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:16:21PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
I'm not a cryptographer, but strong crypto (or the lack thereof) affects us
all in serious ways. As such, I was pondering whether or not it would be in
the interests of OpenBSD to use a different standard than blowfish--Twofish
and
Original message
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:27:42 -0800
From: Chris Cappuccio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blowfish still good enough?
To: Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My concern is the strength of Blowfish--it's
From the *I know I'm going to get lambasted* department, a subdivision of
*I'm an idiot,* under the jusrisdiction of *now I remember why I unsubscribed
from misc* comes this blather:
I'm not a cryptographer, but strong crypto (or the lack thereof) affects us
all in serious ways. As such, I was
On 2005-12-29 14:16:21 -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
Please, tell me I'm an idiot and Blowfish is the best choice for crypto. Then
I won't worry anymore.
You worry too much.
How much is the data worth you are protecting? And how long do
you want it to be protected? And what makes you think that
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. While I'm always
impressed with the quality of OpenBSD, this matters most to me.
On Thursday 29 December 2005 16:35, Martin Schrvder wrote:
On 2005-12-29 14:16:21 -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
Please, tell me I'm an idiot and Blowfish is the best
On 12/29/05, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-12-29 14:16:21 -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
Please, tell me I'm an idiot and Blowfish is the best choice for crypto.
Then
I won't worry anymore.
You worry too much.
You can't worry too much. There is a saying: Attacks always
On 12/29/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. While I'm always
impressed with the quality of OpenBSD, this matters most to me.
and your concern is with blowfish in what context?
On Thursday 29 December 2005 16:35, Martin Schrvder wrote:
On
On Thursday 29 December 2005 19:47, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/29/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. While I'm always
impressed with the quality of OpenBSD, this matters most to me.
and your concern is with blowfish in what context?
My
On 12/29/05, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 19:47, Ted Unangst wrote:
and your concern is with blowfish in what context?
My concern is the strength of Blowfish--it's robustness--if someone with
a large amount of resources desired to crack it.
then don't
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Travers Buda wrote:
The key schedule in both is _much_ faster than Blowfish.
That is not a feature, at least not in the contexts where we use blowfish
most.
The password file and
others would require the use of salts in order to resist dictionary attacks,
especially of
Travers Buda wrote:
[...]
No known weaknesses exist in Blowfish, but that 64 bit block scares me.
[...]
Can you explain why it scares you ? I am not a cryptographer but I see
no reason why a cipher using
64 bit block size is scary, all of the attacks I can think of that are
tied to the block
On Friday 30 December 2005 00:08, Damien Miller wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Travers Buda wrote:
The key schedule in both is _much_ faster than Blowfish.
That is not a feature, at least not in the contexts where we use
blowfish most.
Yes, I realize that. I did not say fast key schedules are
On Monday 30 January 2006 00:22, veins wrote:
Travers Buda wrote:
[...]
No known weaknesses exist in Blowfish, but that 64 bit block scares
me. [...]
Can you explain why it scares you ? I am not a cryptographer but I
see no reason why a cipher using
64 bit block size is scary, all of the
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Travers Buda wrote:
On Friday 30 December 2005 00:08, Damien Miller wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Travers Buda wrote:
The key schedule in both is _much_ faster than Blowfish.
That is not a feature, at least not in the contexts where we use
blowfish most.
Yes, I
31 matches
Mail list logo
