mailing list archives
Re: Introducing TGP...
From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh () ucsd edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:06:42 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:52:12 -0700
"Thor (Hammer Of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com> wrote:
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.
Brute forcing AES256 will never be feasible. Factoring your RSA key
will be -- soon too.
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.
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
Of course, as I write this I realize I'm about to sign this message
with a 1024 bit DSA key...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: Introducing TGP... Jeffrey Walton (Jun 14)