Re: On what the NSA does with its tech
At 02:23 AM 8/5/04 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
The impracticability of breaking symmetric ciphers is only a
comparatively
small part of the overall problem.
Indeed. Following Schneier's axiom, go for the humans, it would not be too hard to involutarily addict someone to something which the withdrawl from which readily compromises any human. Since torture is now legitimized in the US, or its proxies, have a beer (or stronger, etc) Mohammed. Of course, the green card offered to the housecleaning illegal is simpler. Ask Nikky Scarfo. And there's nothing like raping one's children to convince the reticent... particularly if one's halal meal has been doped with various psychopharms.. ------ The problem with quantum computing will be coercing the qubits to do you bidding (not just toy problems) without losing their waviness. Not relevent to the nano-args, but your energy consumption calcs do make it clear that Ft Meade will need some awfully big radiators :-) Then again, its not that far from the ocean, a rather extreme heatsink... Still I concede that Ft Meade has no finer features than IBM. But when economics *don't* dictate, as they do everywhere else, one has to ponder. Still, the 'tographers beat the 'analysts, as you say, for sufficiently large keys, and sufficiently different chained ciphers. Don't put all your squeamish ossifrage eggs in one basket, eh? And stay away from Athens, ok?
The impracticability of breaking symmetric ciphers is only a comparatively small part of the overall problem.
I see that "it can be done only by brute farce" myth is live and well. Hint: all major cryptanalytic advances, where governments broke a cypher and general public found out few *decades* later were not of brute-force kind. And if anyone thinks today's hobby/private cryptographers are any smarter (in a relative way) or more intelligent than their counterparts of 100 or 50 years ago (that were in dark for decades) ... well, you are an idiot. Today's crypto will be regarded in 2050 as Enigmas are regarded today. Development does not stop in any particular period just because you live in it and assume you're entitled to absolute knowledge. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hint: all major cryptanalytic advances, where governments broke a cypher and general public found out few *decades* later were not of brute-force kind. all generalizations are false, including this one. most of the WWII advances in computing were to brute-force code engines, not solve them analytically. but yes - analysis has come a long way, and it is always going to be more cost effective for the NSA to hire mathematical geniuses (at however much it costs) than to build a brute-force cracker at the keysizes available today. And cheaper still to do an end-run around the crypto and access
Morlock Elloi wrote: plaintext on the microsoft-dominated internet.
Pete Capelli wrote:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:07:23 +0100, Dave Howe <davehowe@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
all generalizations are false, including this one. Is this self-referential? yes - some generalizations are accurate - and its also a quote, but I may have misworded it so I didn't quotemark it or supply an attributation :)
participants (4)
-
Dave Howe
-
Major Variola (ret)
-
Morlock Elloi
-
Pete Capelli