Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)

From: Petr Swedock (petr@blade-runner.mit.edu)
Date: 08/29/02 

To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
From: Petr Swedock <petr@blade-runner.mit.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 16:37:51 -0400

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

> Petr Swedock <petr@blade-runner.mit.edu> writes:

> > > at your data like breaking in to your physical location. Silly me. I
> > > guess I missed the concept behind crypto.
> >
> > The concept behind crypto is to confuse, scramble and obfuscate.
>
> I'm glad you've explained it to me.

Glad I could help =-)

> > When it was first designed for and employed in computers the existing
> > mathematical models, computer muscle and modes of analysis were
> > thought to assure unbreakability. Now the use has morphed into
> > a race condition where present mathematical models and future
> > computer muscle, coupled with existing modes of analysis are
> > thought to assure breakability.
>
> So, this means that because a person with a billion in spare change
> lying about might (MIGHT!) be able to break a 1024 bit key every year,
> we should all panic?

I'm quite sure I'm not advocating panic. I'm only addressing
your (perhaps flippant) remark about the concept behind crypto:
which remark seemed to indicate the existence of a non-nil
utility function from the moment crypto was first conceptualized.

Peace,

Petr

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message

Relevant Pages