Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Guy Macon wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
giorgio.tani wrote:
The broadest consense in the community is: 128 bit are enough to
protect for 10-30 years of likely computing evolution
I do not agree with this statement in the slightest.
Even if Moore's law continues for another 30 years, 128 bits
will be well out of range.
Do the arithmetic.
And you are 99.999..% sure (add enough nines to reach 2^128)
that in the next 10-30 years no Quantum Computer capable of
cracking a 128-bit cipher will be invented -- how? How could
you possibly know such a thing?
(1) Economics/Level of Effort -- There isn't enough work being done
developing such a computer.
(2) Even supposing such a computer is built, it will still require
time ~ 2^64 *on a single computer*.
I will grant a magic wish: Poof. Your PC is now a quantum
computer. Ask yourself how long it
will take to do 2^64 operations at a 3GHz clock rate.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: Guy Macon
- Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- References:
- Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: TomFoolery
- Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: giorgio.tani
- Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: Pubkeybreaker
- Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- From: Guy Macon
- Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Prev by Date: Re: triple algorithms
- Next by Date: Re: triple algorithms
- Previous by thread: Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Next by thread: Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|