Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos
believe for solid mathematical reasons.

You forgot Bruce Schneier.

And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).
------------
Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory.
And a couple others as well!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:

No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos
believe for solid mathematical reasons.

You forgot Bruce Schneier.

And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).
------------
Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory.
And a couple others as well!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------
It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.

We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
We are discussing a Govt doing it.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which
belief
is more dangerous?
---------------------
Yours, because it's wrong.


Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.



Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
system
was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you
try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable
cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------
Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.

That is what you believe. you are wrong.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and
they
have always been wrong.
-------------------------
None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.


Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.



everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks
their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto
guys
quoted the math.
---------------------------
Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!


I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?



What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those
'puters
they
own?
playing Doom?
---------------------
Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot
anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of
using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat
them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are
totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up
and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.

Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------
Irrelevant.


Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.


Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------
If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.



Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool.


Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals
systems
and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him
that
there
was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------
That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is
uncrackable.
--------------------------
That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------
It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.

We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
We are discussing a Govt doing it.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which
belief
is more dangerous?
---------------------
Yours, because it's wrong.


Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.



Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
system
was
safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you
try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable
cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------
Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.

That is what you believe. you are wrong.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.

Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and
they
have always been wrong.
-------------------------
None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.


Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.



everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.

I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks
their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto
guys
quoted the math.
---------------------------
Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!


I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?



What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those
'puters
they
own?
playing Doom?
---------------------
Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot
anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of
using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat
them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are
totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up
and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.

Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------
Irrelevant.


Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.


Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------
If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.



Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool.


Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals
systems
and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him
that
there
was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------
That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is
uncrackable.
--------------------------
That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple
machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for
the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

And right.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple
machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for
the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

And right.

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.

Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?

Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,

True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
existance right now, or likely to exist.

Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
billion keys/second.

Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
10^60 years.

Well, I guess you ought to inform Congress that the NSA is a sham, then.

Brooks

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.

Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?

Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,

True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
existance right now, or likely to exist.

Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
billion keys/second.

Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
10^60 years.

Well, I guess you ought to inform Congress that the NSA is a sham, then.

Brooks

L'acrobat wrote:

Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.
--------------------
You have said precisely nothing contentful.

You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

L'acrobat wrote:

Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.
--------------------
You have said precisely nothing contentful.

You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public