Posted on 05/24/2005 9:56:37 PM PDT by atomic_dog
Not correct, unless "a little longer" means "trillions of times longer than the age of the universe".
LOL - well, that's just slightly longer than what we Texans mean when we say we're "fixin' to" do something, heheh.
You may be right about the math (I'm no mathematician). I was under the impression that the NSA has access to the fastest supercomputers which could crack 256 bit encryption, given a few months to do so.
Here's a link to an interesting commentary on the subject:
This sentence is from that article:
"A Swedish team managed to crack 256 bit encryption in around two weeks..."
Maybe that's all just hype - I don't know. But the following links show info that in 1997, a non-government computer was built to crack DES (56 bit) and proved that it could be done when almost everyone was saying that it couldn't.
The best defenses (war or computer) will always eventually be overcome by new improved offenses, and the best offenses, likewise, will always be defeated by new and improved defenses - (IMHO) - at least, this has historically been true.
Thus, I agree with the end of your post where you said:
"... although it's entirely possible the NSA knows things that we don't."
LOL
FReegards,
RT
Unfortunately there's not much detail beyond that, so I don't know exactly what it means. It certainly wasn't a brute-force attack.
But the following links show info that in 1997, a non-government computer was built to crack DES (56 bit) and proved that it could be done when almost everyone was saying that it couldn't.
Sure, but 56 bits isn't that much. 2^56 = 72 quadrillion keys. Sounds like a lot, but it's easily within reach of today's computers, either by clustering a lot of them together or by building special-purpose hardware like the EFF did. But every bit you add *doubles* the number of possible keys, so a 64-bit key is 256 times harder to break than a 56-bit key (again, assuming brute force is the only possible way). Once you get up to 128 bits, it's effectively impossible, see the above post for more detailed math.
The best defenses (war or computer) will always eventually be overcome by new improved offenses, and the best offenses, likewise, will always be defeated by new and improved defenses - (IMHO) - at least, this has historically been true.
In cryptography, the defense has a huge advantage. If you have the key, it's almost as easy to decrypt a message that used a 128-bit key as a 64-bit key, but as I've mentioned, it's tremendously more difficult to extract that key if you don't have it. Which just means that snoops will have to resort to other tactics. The best encryption in the world won't help if the CIA is looking at your computer screen via a hidden camera.
"Once you get up to 128 bits, it's effectively impossible ..."
The math does indicate the difficulty in breaking, cracking, or decrypting it.
"In cryptography, the defense has a huge advantage."
True, but for some, that's the motivation to keep trying to break the code - it's the challenge. Eventually, we will probably find a way to do so. Who can say for sure? (The only absolutes, I am sure about are God and Taxes, lol.)
"The best encryption in the world won't help if the CIA is looking at your computer screen via a hidden camera."
LOL - being paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get us, heheh.
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
And so do the NSA, CIA, IRS, FBI, DHS, etc., heheh.
Puzzle Palace is a good book...
"Puzzle Palace is a good book..."
Thanks for the referral. I just read the blurb on it and it sounds terrific - just the kind of stuff that fascinates me.
Thanks, again.
honestly, I admit, it was so good (complicated) I could not read it straight through. It was however, one of the most informative books I have ever read.
a.k.a. it ain't an easy-read novel, but if you want to know how they laid the taps on trans-atlantic telephone cables (and the divers had directives to kill themselves before being caught) then you might like this book.
"The judge making an idiotic ruling on possession of perfectly legal software is NOT a good thing. Possession of it is not indication whatsoever of criminal intent. "
I completely agree with your statement (I am a proud handgun owner for example).
However where I think we are not in agreement is that I believe IN CONJUNCTION with other more compelling evidence the possession of the software is compelling.
To give you a practical example if a man is arrested for possession of drugs and he claims the drugs are for his personal use, should further investigation reveal paraphernalia used for making deals or weighing equipment etc, then there is also now probable cause to assume that he is a commercial supplier and a dealer not a personal abuser. In this way the encryption software is not illegally owned that is not what the judge is saying, he is ruling that the software shows in conjunctions with other strong evidence that the person is guilty of not just a passing interest in child porn but has sophisticated strategy implemented to avoid detection.
There is a distinction here do you agree?
"I disagree. Possessing a legal program or item does not show criminal intent. If it did, then we're all in trouble. For example: having a pack of cigarettes in your pocket while entering a 'smoke-free' building would be a crime (the criminal intent of smoking in a prohibited place being evident by the mere possession of a pack of cigarettes). "
I again disagree sorry ;-) The judge is not ruling that possession of the software is illegal, he is ruling it is significant indicator of guilt when other hard evidence exists in CONJUNCTION with the ownership of the software.
To demonstrate with your own example If you have a pack of cigarettes in your pocket and a bag of marijuana in your bag, chances are you are using them to mix together and make a "joint", this would indicate that you are a personal user not a dealer, this does not make the cigarettes illegal to own. If you had a bag of in marijuana in your pocket an NO cigarettes but individual bags for customers (which of course are also not illegal) then these two sets on evidence found in conjunction with each other demonstrate reasonable doubt to indicate that you are dealing.
Hope this clears up the points being made here :-)
Bump for later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.