Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Introducing TGP...
From: "Thor (Hammer Of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:52:12 -0700

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 () cyberdelix net> wrote:

On 14 Jun 2010 at 11:51, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt 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 () cyberdelix 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/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]