Message-ID: <optid.5781d17561.7BF88D8D-690D-4B00-8914-FBAC3586423B@hammerofgod.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:52:12 -0700
From: "Thor (Hammer Of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "<stuart@...erdelix.net>" <stuart@...erdelix.net>
Cc: "<full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Introducing TGP...

You don't think I considered it?  Really?  You think that I would go  
through the trouble of designing and implenting a standards based  
encrytion application without considering that it could be cracked?

You are incorrect. I certainly considered it. I just know that when  
brute forcing AES256 becomes feasible, a scan of mynpssport will be  
the last thing on anyone mind.

How does this differ from SSL, and why do you think I would have to be  
"live on the wire" to crack it?

If your entire argument is "it can be cracked at some point" then you  
argue against *any* type of encrytion.

Postulative statements in the obvious are a waste of people's time.

T



On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:23 AM, lsi <stuart@...erdelix.net> wrote:

> 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/

_______________________________________________
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