full-disclosure - Re: Introducing TGP...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:23:25 +0100
From: "lsi" <stuart@...erdelix.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Introducing TGP...

On 14 Jun 2010 at 11:51, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:

> > > Ancient crypto?  You really have no effing clue, do you?
> > 
> > Whatever you use today, it will be ancient in 5 years.
> 
> PGP came out when? 1991.  Will be a quarter century old in 5 years.

DES is the first example I can think of.  Folks did believe in that. 
Pity it's crackable.  Pity even more those who believed in it, then 
posted their passport encrypted with it, to a security list...

> Amazingly enough, they're all pretty much still going strong - mostly

So you mean that some of them aren't going strong, then?  Did they 
get cracked, by any chance?  Did I mention DES yet?

> because the crypto field moves pretty damned slowly.  The general
> philosophy in crypto isn't "It will be ancient in 5 years", it's "we
> won't even trust it for live deployment until good people have bashed
> it for a decade".

Good people will find flaws.  However they cannot stop brute-forcing, 
which is viable in some circumstances, and as time passes this 
viability increases.  This increase is not the same as Moore's Law, 
if you have a parallel platform you are not limited by linear growth 
in CPU power, you just add more CPUs.  As it happens parallel 
platforms are great for brute-forcing, did I mention DES, which was 
cracked by a machine with 1856 processors?

> > Even if nobody finds a weakness in the algorithm you used, 5 years
> > from now I will probably have enough spare CPU to brute-force it
> > using my mobile phone....
> 
> Moore's Law doesn't move *that* fast.

I was joking (but only half-joking).

> And what good drugs are you on that you think a cell phone processor 5
> years from now will have the CPU power that current moby-cluster
> supercomputers have? 

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that in 5 years, the currently 
infeasible will be feasible.  No, I don't think that's a surprise 
either, but I don't think Tim has considered it.

Stu

---
Stuart Udall
stuart at@...erdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/

--- 
 * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2)

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/