Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:28:58 +0000
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> www.dict.org finds a few meanings. The RFC proposes a new list of words
>>> all of which have four letters.
>>
>> In other words, dicemail is fu*/*d. This is unfortunately - well, it's just
>> sad.
>>
>> 'Bye Dicemail, you were a good idea, but you got f***ed by greedy people.
>> May you reincarnate well!
>
> I don't understand this. What's dicemail
Sorry, diceware.
dice ... dice ... slice ... stuff .. rheinhart - rheinhold - diceman - - I
am getting confused myself now.
But okay, here's a challenge - what's the diceware vocabulary/wordlist, and
the convert-to key table, and where can I download it?
Note, it has to be an official, and universally accepted, and
works-in-all-diceware-implementations list.
> and what does it have to do
> with that word list? MOT came from some list that S/key used to use.
MOT came from the list you linked to at
http://www.nightsong.com/crypto/dice.php
as a quote in the example given. But if MOT's an English word, I haven't
heard of it. I could ask my sister, who was a compiler for the Oxford
English Dictionary, if you like. She does a good Christmas dinner too.
> I see a perl email project called dicemail on sourceforge, but I'm not
> sure if that's what you mean.
Nah, and I hereby promise I will never link to any perl project ever. Not
that that was any strain.
> I guess I don't really understand your original question. If you
> really want to guard against vocabulary issues and changes in spelling
> conventions across multiple generations, maybe you should just stick
> with random digits.
Nope, I want to guard against one keyphrase expanding/converting to
different keys in different systems. Compatibility is the word, I think.
> For 128 bits you need 39 digits, which you might
> expand to 50 or 60 digits with an error correcting code, to protect
> against a transcription error here or there. That's the equivalent of
> half a dozen phone numbers with area codes; not hard to write down,
> not out of the question to memorize. Whether you could stay
> interested in whatever the secret is for that long, or convince anyone
> else to stay interested in it, is another matter.
And that is the problem, those keys are too long - so we use letter/digit
combo's. Not (usually) for secret keys, but for public keys.
--
Peter Fairbrother
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- References:
- Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Joseph Ashwood
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- From: Paul Rubin
- Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- Prev by Date: Re: Information regarding LRW-AES
- Next by Date: OpenSSL 0.9.8
- Previous by thread: Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- Next by thread: Re: Memorisable/handwriteable/typeable key styles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|