magnetic field

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F725AC9.6730@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
let alone 30.
-----------------

Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------

Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.

Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?
------------------------

You have absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Thomas Schoene]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com

Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.

OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
recipients.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

 

[L'acrobat]

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn5q9i.43u.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat
husky65@delete_me.netspace.net.au> wrote:

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.

Right. you are going to base national security matter on a rule of thumb
that relates to a typical PC.

Good move.

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F725AC9.6730@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.

See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com

Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.
-----------------------

Or DNA computing, sure.

Just an escalation, the power of operations easier one way than the
other persists and an increase in length results in the same safety.

For it to be otherwise you need to postulate that the govt will be
doing its own fundamental research, and it NEVER does, and that it
will develop QC to that level BEFORE the market sells it or the people
developing it steal it and spread it around to prevent a national
monopoly on power, and that's pretty unlikely.

OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
recipients.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
---------------------

Yes. Goes without saying.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F725AC9.6730@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
-------------------

You're a lying shit and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe.
----------------

You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73C44B.40C2@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F725AC9.6730@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" <philh@cabalamat.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com...

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined
with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have
absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying shit and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.

Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, but you are.

What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own?
playing Doom?

Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...

 

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73C44B.40C2@armory.com...

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what bollocks, you and I have
absolutely
no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
from
now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
didn't
it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about.


See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying shit and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.

Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?
-----------------------

Ain't any such.

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------

It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------

Which we knew, but it takes for fucking ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.

but you are.
--------------------

More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering.

What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own?
playing Doom?
---------------------

Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole fucking hell of a lot anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.

Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------

That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[H. Dziardziel]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:37:15 -0700, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:53:04 +0900, H. Dziardziel
hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:

And I serviced them decades ago and can't recall anything like
what is found nowdays in monitors and TVs but admittedly the air
was far cleaner then (at least where I lived) unless oil heat was
used.. But I have seen the effects of outgassing plastic on
for, example, walls.. The internal heat in monitors would
certainly accelerate that And the ozone. .


You seem to have this thing for plastics outgassing.

Sorry to burst your bubble but plastics that are used for monitor
housings do not outgas black particulate.

"Outgas black particulate" are your own oxymoronic words..

The "plastics" used for the FBT shell are thermoset plastics and do
not outgas. The potting material for FBTs does not outgas. IC chips
and transistor are NOT packaged in plastic, they are encased in EPOXY,
and the type used only "outgasses" at very high temperatures for
exceeding those of the interior of a monitor shell.

Conclusion: Plastic, and plastic outgassing is NOT the source.

All plastics, and even metals, outgas to some degree varying with
temperatures. Asian plastics and manufactured products in
particular as used for much consumer electronics, contain a very
high level of recycled low quality plastic, and leftover
production chemicals. Other causes include:

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/09/19/compallergy000919

The source is externally attracted airborne particulate... PERIOD.

Glad you sorted all that out finally..

 

[DarkMatter]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:10 +0900, H. Dziardziel
<hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:

"Outgas black particulate" are your own oxymoronic words..

No, dipshit. "Outgas" is yours. "Black particulate" is the subject
of the post. You claimed that one was tied to the other.

Got clue?

 

[phil hunt]

On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...
On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.

Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?

Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,

True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
existance right now, or likely to exist.

Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
billion keys/second.

Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
10^60 years.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Mike Andrews <mikea@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:

In <slrnbn4ckg.1lp.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com> (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general
case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all
manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly
obvious.

Absolutely.

Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard
crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting.

What was interesting about it?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[Fred Abse]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:55:53 GMT, Thomas Schoene <taschoene@earthlink.invalid> wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73915A.278@armory.com

Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds.

Maybe. And maybe QC will make possible other encryption techniques.

OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves).

All good cryptosystems are still effective if the adversary knows
the algorithm.

The most effective attacks aren't usually on the systems, but on the
people -- e.g. getting an insider to divulge secrets.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult
------------------------

We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
number of atoms in the big bang!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[H. Dziardziel]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:55:05 -0700, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:10 +0900, H. Dziardziel
hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:


"Outgas black particulate" are your own oxymoronic words..


No, dipshit. "Outgas" is yours. "Black particulate" is the subject
of the post. You claimed that one was tied to the other.

Got clue?
plonk

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:28:49 +0900, H. Dziardziel
<hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:55:05 -0700, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:10 +0900, H. Dziardziel
hdzi@zworg.nospamcom> Gave us:


"Outgas black particulate" are your own oxymoronic words..


No, dipshit. "Outgas" is yours. "Black particulate" is the subject
of the post. You claimed that one was tied to the other.

Got clue?
plonk

The only thing more retarded than an idiot that cannot defend his
position, is one that kill filters someone, because he cannot defend
his position. The only even more retarded than that is the idiot that
announces his filter file edits, as if someone else in usenet actually
give a fat flying fuck about it.

You are that retard.

 

[L'acrobat]

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F73CB20.1DB1@armory.com...

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------
It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.

We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.

We are discussing a Govt doing it.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system
was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------
Which we knew, but it takes for fucking ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.

That is what you believe. you are wrong. everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.

but you are.
--------------------
More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering.

Yawn.

What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they
own?
playing Doom?
---------------------
Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole fucking hell of a lot anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.

Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.

Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there
was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------
That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly
ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.
------------------

BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public