magnetic field

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

"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.
---------------

You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

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.
--------------

No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------

That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

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'.
------------------------------------

I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

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.
-----------------------

Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

-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

 

[Dave Holford]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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
--

There were atoms in the Big Bang?
That should come as a surprise to science!

Dave

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74E830.2603@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"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.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief
is more dangerous?

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.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they
have always been wrong.

everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys
quoted the math.

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'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A fuck of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.

Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.

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.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable.

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74E6C4.3EDC@armory.com...

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)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.

Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.

 

[John Keeney]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74A7F9.14D9@armory.com...

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!

Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.

 

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:14:42 +1000, L'acrobat
<husky65@delete_me.netspace.net.au> wrote:

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult

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

If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will
crack a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter
fool who knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption.

--
"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]

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74E830.2603@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"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.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief
is more dangerous?
---------------------

Yours, because it's wrong.

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.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they
have always been wrong.
-------------------------

None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.

everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys
quoted the math.
---------------------------

Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!

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'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A fuck of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------

Irrelevant.

Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------

If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.

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.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is > uncrackable.
--------------------------

That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

-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:3F74E6C4.3EDC@armory.com...
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)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------

Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.

Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------

You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

-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]

John Keeney wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74A7F9.14D9@armory.com...
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!

Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.
------------

You don't even understand the math, go the fuck away and be pitiful.

-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

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice
for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus

Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with
Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random
to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish)

I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000
characters a second.

The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes.

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

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:32:26 +0100, phil hunt wrote:

If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will crack
a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter fool who
knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption.

Seconded.

BTW, how many silicon atoms are there in the universe?



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

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos
believe for solid mathematical reasons.

You forgot Bruce Schneier.

And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).

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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice
for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus

Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with
Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random
to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish)
-------------

Ooops, sorry, you're right, but the Lorenz was a machine that used the
same basic principle as Enigma.

I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000
characters a second.

The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes.
-------------

True, thanks for that!

-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]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos
believe for solid mathematical reasons.

You forgot Bruce Schneier.

And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).
------------

Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory.
And a couple others as well!

-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:3F75CF4C.528F@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74E830.2603@armory.com...
L'acrobat wrote:

"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.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which
belief
is more dangerous?
---------------------
Yours, because it's wrong.

Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

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.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and
they
have always been wrong.
-------------------------
None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.

Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks
their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto
guys
quoted the math.
---------------------------
Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

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'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A fuck of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------
Irrelevant.

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------
If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.

Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool.

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.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is
uncrackable.
--------------------------
That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.

 

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F75D01C.4973@armory.com...

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F74E6C4.3EDC@armory.com...
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)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

And right.

 

"John" <john@spam.me> wrote in message news:<BIYcb.980$wm7.8704210@news-text.cableinet.net>...

Dont ask why (I suspect i am over complicating matters somewhat) but I am
thinking about attempting to control the central heating via pc.

To do this I need to take two tempreature readings (flow and return) and
feed this information to the PC (the capacity for a third room thermostat
would be useful for later usage)

Outputs would need to control two relays which would switch the heating
accordinly.

As the processing is mostly mathematical, the easiest system to use (this is
a prototype) would be something like Excel, rather than having to writing
dedicated software. Ideally, the imput readings would be displayed in a
cell, and outputs can be switched depending on the value in a second
calculated cell.

I am sure that this should not be difficult with the right hardware? Is it
more diffult that it sounds?

Are there any suitable low cost data input output boards that would help?
Any links?

Personally, I would take the route of a custom application utilising a
1-wire bus for both control and temperature sensing. I figure if you
are going to want precise control over the temperature at all, you may
as well be able to control the whole system down to room level. For me
anyway, the extra effort in rolling a custom application would be
worth it. There are loads of 1-wire examples on the web to get you
started.

regards
Alastair

 

[Kevin Brooks]

philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbn92nb.8hs.philh@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>...

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.

Well, I guess you ought to inform Congress that the NSA is a sham, then.

Brooks

 

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:

Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.
--------------------

You have said precisely nothing contentful.

You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain.

-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

 

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

In article <2cr9jv8c60mlkfs0g99vjerfaqtbm62msu@4ax.com>,
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
[snippages]

I live in a very small apartment. I might be able to find a little
space to hold a couple of milk crates containing some electronic supplies
and equipment but I don't think I will really be able to find space
to work on electronics in my apartment. So I've been wondering where
else I can work. It would be nice if there were electronics clubs that
offer space for members to work, but I don't expect that. What I've
been wondering is whether it is possible to work outdoors...

Assuming these logistical problems could be solved, there is also
the question of whether any aspect of this activity (e.g. melting
and possibly vaporizing solder) on a park bench might be illegal.

You say:

I'll see if anyone I know might be in a position to let
me use some space for electronics.

That's really, really, really your best option. Don't forget to pester
science teachers at high schools, professors at universities, and
(assuming you are the person described at
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~adler/LABYRINTHS/labyrinths4.html#About%20the
%20author%20... ) everyone you know or knew at Dartmouth, MIT, Brandeis,
Yale, Brown, URI, etc.

I am not a lawyer. But I don't think this is primarily a legal
question. I see two big dangers:

I'd be somewhat concerned about the possibility of
bullying/harassment/theft. Leaving the equipment unattended would
certainly be unwise. (How you would take bathroom breaks?) An area
frequented by engineering students would reduce the chances of bullying
and harassment--but might well increase the risk of theft!

Another danger is that anything involving visible smoke and melting
substances might look to someone as if you were doing something that was
somehow drug-related. That could attract unwelcome attention from a)
the law or b) from people interested in drugs.

In general, your chances of getting in trouble would depend very much on
whether or not you were bothering the people around you.

I--uh, I'm not a lawyer and this is NOT ADVICE--wouldn't think you could
get into serious trouble with the official law. The worst that would
happen might be that a cop might say "You can't do that here." If you
said, "OK," packed up and left, I'd think that would be the end of it.
(Arguing with a cop or defying a cop is, of course, risky--and it's
risky whether or not the law is on your side).

To your practical questions:

They have small soldering irons that run off little propane cylinders
rather than electricity, but I don't know details. There are also
rechargeable cordless soldering irons; I don't know how long they stay
hot or how much work you can do with them without a recharge.

There are small portable instruments called "scopemeters," which are
like digital multimeters but with a small LCD screen and some
oscilloscope capabilities. They are much smaller than a laptop, and
probably not quite as obvious a target for theft. I think they cost
$1000 or more, though.

--
dpbsmith at world dot std dot com
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/10808 ISBN 1-4033-1406-3