> Guys, if you are in trouble with NSA, or other US governmentals agency, > you're screwed. Physically. Don't mind your electronical com'.
totally agree. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/29/fbi_stingray_mobile_tracking/ -- []s Fosforo ------------------------------------------------------------- "Se eu tiver oito horas pra cortar uma arvore, passarei seis afiando meu machado." -Abraham Lincoln ------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Alexandre Guillioud < [email protected]> wrote: > Why not using some exotic scramble of keys/method to encrypt the whole > message ? > > The only way to hide/protect us from something we don't know, is putting a > mess in protocols. A big mess. > The point is : How can we unscramble it at the end without revealing the > secret necessary to scramble it ? > > Guys, if you are in trouble with NSA, or other US governmentals agency, > you're screwed. Physically. Don't mind your electronical com'. > > > 2013/4/5 george torwell <[email protected]> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > i wasnt going to, but now i have to... > > i dont know what tech or knowledge they have. > > but i imagine that if you angered them, and they wanted your keys, they > > would come and get them. > > physically or electronically. > > <again, only cause nsa whistle-blowers has said so.> > > so lets not speculate :) > > > > i have a lot of faith in the developers, but if you feel that they are > > missing something, please find a way to contribute that knowledge to the > > project. that way we all benefit. > > > > On 04/04/2013 08:23 AM, Tim wrote: > > > Those at the root of the NSA have technology that is far faster and > more > > vast than you imagine it > > currently to be. To decrypt keys, It does not take what you might > > otherwise expect. > > > > > > I'm sure one or more of the developers are either in denial or part of > > the "security" apparatus or both. I would not hold your breath. > > > > > > Be well. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, George Torwell <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > i may be wrong but: > > > - we are talking about keys of every node along the path. how can > you > > > increase that just locally? > > > - keep in mind that we dont know if factoring such a key is > > likely, if i > > > remember correctly that talk mentioned huge amounts of computation > > power > > > and electricity. > > > something like a year for a 40 mega watt consuming data center > > per 1024 > > > bit key. <maybe way off, but the point being - its really > expensive.> > > > on the other hand its rumored that the utah data center will > > have 65 > > > mega watts from its own power station. > > > im pretty sure that the developers will move us safely from these > > keys as > > > soon as its needed :) > > > > > > > > > On 4 April 2013 13:54, Bernard Tyers <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > That's what I was thinking, I just didn't know if there was > another > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > I guess the key size is configured on the Tor node? I haven't > > found it > > > > anywhere in the configuration (I'm using TBB on OS X). > > > > > > > > Is it possible to increase the size of the key, if say I've got > > a big > > > > server running as a node? > > > > > > > > If there are nodes using different length keys, is the security > > relying on > > > > the node with the smallest key length? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Bernard > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > Written on my small electric gadget. Please excuse brevity and > > (possible) > > > > misspelling. > > > > > > > > Alexandre Guillioud <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >The bigger the key is, the longer (cpu cycle) it take to > > encrypt/decrypt ? > > > > > > > > > >Le jeudi 4 avril 2013, Bernard Tyers a écrit : > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> Is there a reason 1024 bit keys, instead of something higher > > is not > > > > used? > > > > >> Do higher bit keys affect host performance, or network > latency? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Bernard > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ---- > > > > >> Written on my small electric gadget. Please excuse brevity and > > > > (probable) > > > > >> misspelling. > > > > >> > > > > >> George Torwell <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> a second guess would be going after 1024 bit keys. > > > > >> there is also a video on youtube from a recent con about the > > > > feasibility of > > > > >> factoring them, <"fast hacks" or something like that> at the > > end, jacob > > > > >> applebaum asks about it and they advise him to use longer keys > > or > > > > elliptic > > > > >> curves crypto. > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> tor-talk mailing list > > > > >> [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> <javascript:;> > > > > >> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > > > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >tor-talk mailing list > > > > >[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > tor-talk mailing list > > > > [email protected] <mailto: > > [email protected]> > > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > tor-talk mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]> > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRXnX4AAoJELpj163ICqulUkQP/23p+bUuJrtJB2mBf61ONab4 > > WQYntei2nUX+1iegQAmfO8rAQe7A897HCaiOH4paEZCsmTMzsCPdYIQrJli6MCDD > > l7eHYXJRByw16otUY8GI4d2mZ6AtwefrYVTLDO+PZrjyFcWRHoJ7YRXD2qOsfdQQ > > 1B9eKDX3Q0laZC99bInLM8zuRX/2GG5gvFBoDTo3AtMMZZWCgxYwRy6MDPyUDjPb > > 1lJNHthkGriNwpgiewx3SX0USDY4DiwYL1NVFAqisQKsWpoaGyJAUhk3HQ6wvRsx > > o/pC0TFXJspYvSDMqZvRQke6h8I85JO3uU2hPEonq/cu3RC88M7e6/b3hyG1fbVP > > /gwF1sCQH+fmcrthxZkVWnA1QDrQ1CTtx6ooJT03POPxSqWQ/7RRKGifqn6cmYSo > > pVgNTYb+6OzkMQTGNIFukjd+NIideSjTrNziNIdCHK8HqXX9mqh2rXopwTpxSp+1 > > mQtqaxf9U7USyMLd4gPOkBD83d6nuywwBxrUhou3BH73b4uOu6z9xz2OPvRWf5j1 > > 3ykjbjgBnDfjslFilOvAG8dzVCIp5SayXaDAfhe+R9iZBHDgHLxINuqodvQIgNT5 > > trNtOq3szx1KR5+8LIOGS0DhNjuuCqy0JQG+KCLsOc2IeuKYyCbGg28EmNFozde/ > > OS1jfrL6I/LX+i/mdf3a > > =tydj > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tor-talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
