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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:47:37 +0000 From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com> To: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh@...d.edu> Cc: "<full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk> Subject: Re: Introducing TGP... > > You're using a 1024 bit key here which seems a bit gutsy ;-) > > > > Without better attacks, you basically have: > > > > Brute force AES 256 -> O(2^256) > > Bruce force your 20 char password -> roughly O(2^(20*7)) == O(2^140) > > Factor your 1024 bit public modulus -> roughly O(2^80) > > > > Since a 768 bit RSA key has already been factored I'd say you only > > have a few years before a moderately sized cluster could factor your public > key. > > > > Of course, as I write this I realize I'm about to sign this message > > with a 1024 bit DSA key... > > Actually it's 2048, which I was comfortable with. And don't forget the 16bit > salt on that password ;) I stand corrected-that key was indeed 1024, not 2048. LSI still has some hope in cracking my key and getting that scan of my passport since I used "ancient encryption" after all! FWIW, v1.1.07 actually uses 4096 bit keys, which I will update shortly. Not sure if I'm going to make that configurable or not. I'm thinking no, because there's no real value in using a smaller key in this application. t _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists