Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Introducing TGP...
From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh () ucsd edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:06:42 +0000

Hash: SHA1

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...


Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

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 ]