How "not" to keep a secret...
onenastyviper - 6/9/13 at 01:52 PM
BBC News - Secrets actually not so secret
The thing that makes me laugh is the fact that people thought that this didn't or even couldn't happen.
ashg - 6/9/13 at 02:06 PM
if you don't want people to have it don't put it on the internet. simples 
Slimy38 - 6/9/13 at 02:09 PM
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing power. They
might be building dedicated supercomputers at the moment, but it only needs a couple of decades before we'll be wanting it in our phones and
wristwatches.
What is disturbing is the US asking for backdoors. That's nothing to do with the US wanting to snoop, that is painting a target on all our credit
cards and paypal accounts. It would only take one leak and our lives are laid bare.
Slimy38 - 6/9/13 at 02:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ashg
if you don't want people to have it don't put it on the internet. simples
In most cases it's not 'you' that put it on the internet. For example, consider Mr O.L. biddy, phones up his insurance company and gets
insurance the 'old fashioned way'. We can instantly go on askmid and see that he has insurance. Mr O had absolutely nothing to do with the
internet, he probably doesn't know what the internet is!
onenastyviper - 6/9/13 at 02:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing power. They
might be building dedicated supercomputers at the moment, but it only needs a couple of decades before we'll be wanting it in our phones and
wristwatches.
What is disturbing is the US asking for backdoors. That's nothing to do with the US wanting to snoop, that is painting a target on all our credit
cards and paypal accounts. It would only take one leak and our lives are laid bare.
Perish the thought that the UK would even contemplate asking for the same levels of access.
Either that or we didn't think it first.
scudderfish - 6/9/13 at 03:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing
power.
Enough computing power is currently of the order of lifetime of the galaxy. However that is with currently available computing architectures and
publicly known mathematical techniques. Something like quantum computing could be a complete game changer, or if someone has secretly discovered a
mathematical technique that makes factoring a pair of primes out of a number easy and isn't telling.
The current maths behind encryption was 'discovered' in 1977, but it was actually invented in 1973 by a guy called Clifford Cocks at GCHQ.
If GCHQ/NSA have made a mathematical advance and are not talking about it then all bets are off. Similar to how after WWII we sold loads of captured
Enigma machines to allies and members of the Empire/Commonwealth whilst neglecting to mention that Bletchley had comprehensively broken it.
Slimy38 - 6/9/13 at 03:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing
power.
Enough computing power is currently of the order of lifetime of the galaxy. However that is with currently available computing architectures and
publicly known mathematical techniques.
Exactly, we can only make calculations based on what we have at the moment. A 386 based PC didn't have the power (or storage) to play an MP3,
nowadays we have devices that can compress full HD in near realtime. If we carry on as we are (and Moore still reckons we can), we'll get to the
finish line long before we get consumed by our sun.
jollygreengiant - 6/9/13 at 03:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing power. They
might be building dedicated supercomputers at the moment, but it only needs a couple of decades before we'll be wanting it in our phones and
wristwatches.
What is disturbing is the US asking for backdoors. That's nothing to do with the US wanting to snoop, that is painting a target on all our credit
cards and paypal accounts. It would only take one leak and our lives are laid bare.
Perish the thought that the UK would even contemplate asking for the same levels of access.
Either that or we didn't think it first.
Don't forget that WE were the first during the WWII to use code breakers to break the German 'Enigma' codes with a
'Computer'. So, don't be surprised if, we not only thought of 'this' but thought of this first.
scudderfish - 6/9/13 at 05:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
It was just a matter of time. Even when the encryption was created, the developers admitted it could be cracked with enough computing
power.
Enough computing power is currently of the order of lifetime of the galaxy. However that is with currently available computing architectures and
publicly known mathematical techniques.
Exactly, we can only make calculations based on what we have at the moment. A 386 based PC didn't have the power (or storage) to play an MP3,
nowadays we have devices that can compress full HD in near realtime. If we carry on as we are (and Moore still reckons we can), we'll get to the
finish line long before we get consumed by our sun.
Factoring is currently really hard. We can just about brute force a 768 bit key*. 4096 bit keys are feasible to use. However for each added bit,
the problem gets twice as hard, so beating a 4096 bit key in the same way as a 768 bit key would take (according to Wolfram Alpha)
672706415849525363672061710590748598080078035976730531710202862169814320146041465949167226845615067107004427682346372141065853670901089242604215361347
475018114239007805494734082131691956736431650711910149270489285290935358697909793719757951435160697664001675938222104684685624609678128460912685041175
300124472992921636242522432706008619293157646836302405445225495866969059774047390055935021943703776050265530806733054911418157653615895819885083112177
300629883309933117054614637424904839059125567451510745314208291149048322883710037437188414202708460902032250571859240633537276741410591407653287652626
422237429905361523388643017465076588367552734387529231988492651937301076953380052728944355686755856180220544832210592787381580022988921931327103623253
535724292802275799531496345786766346694729100113609568687283998777114096187194771642528030264757370723512002021149599991354018877406253087007609838180
450325041305506679456275537739817030099053014700385430057091880781213441870882175491033233629649043456 times longer. Moores Law (and it's
debatable as to if it still applies) can't keep up with that.
Regards,
Dave
* Done on a large cluster. From the article about it (2010) "On a single core 2.2 GHz AMD Opteron processor with
2 GB RAM, sieving would have taken about fifteen hundred years."