Pay for Play, Influence Peddling, Tor and Hillary/Russia

[Georgi Guninski]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:29:14AM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 05:21:06 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > PGP 1.0 also worked exactly
> > as designed.  It was limited to keylengths of 1024 bits,as I recall,
> > which no doubt Phil Zimmerman considered sufficient for a first
> > attempt.. Eventually it was considered by others desireable to issue
> > revisions allowing much-longer keylengths.
> 
> 	25 years ago when pgp was released a 1024 bits key seemed
> 	reasonable. 
>

Strongly disagree. Allowing longer keys doesn't hurt, except for more
resources (and possibly false sense of security).

History shows that in crypto what _seems_ true might not be.

Very large upper bound is reasonable for DOS protection.

Even very fast algorithms take prohibitively long time on
sufficiently large input. I suspect building 1024/2048 qubit quantum computer
is much easier that building 100K qubit one.