Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)
From: Perry E. Metzger (perry@piermont.com)
Date: 08/29/02
- Next message: Peter C. Lai: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Previous message: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: Karsten W. Rohrbach: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Next in thread: Peter C. Lai: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Date: 29 Aug 2002 15:37:33 -0400
"Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de> writes:
> Perry E. Metzger(perry@piermont.com)@2002.08.29 10:15:34 +0000:
> > "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de> writes:
> > > tracking the evolution of computing machinery nowadays, implementing
> > > cryptanalysis in hardware becomes cheaper and faster at an amazing
> > > speed. my wild guess is, that through the upcoming broad availability of
> > > software programmable hardware that is available today, attacks to
> > > crypto in general will become very cheap in a timeframe of months.
> >
> > If you can attack 1024 bit keys cheaply a few months from now, please
> > let us know. Where I live, Moore's law still observes things double
> > every 18 months, not every 18 hours.
>
> http://rcc.lanl.gov/index.php as a starting point. screw moores law, if
> the problem can be parallelized. ;-)
Gee, THAT is a really useful idea. Why, I bet that Xilinx will sell me
FPGAs for free! That way if I want to buy ten times more, it won't
cost me ten times as much! And I bet no one thought of that idea
before -- why, I bet when people came up with estimates for the price
of a piece of hardware to execute djb's algorithms they never thought
of parallel processing at all.
Perry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Peter C. Lai: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Previous message: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: Karsten W. Rohrbach: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Next in thread: Peter C. Lai: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|