Re: my KDF vs dictionary attacks

In message <0wGNj.2542$ko5.65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Antony Clements <antony.clements@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:bmriMSC8FxBIFwie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Important thing, semantics.

not surprising i usually get caught out by semantics

Feel free to explain how a 16-bit 2's-complement signed integer
representation fails to use "both the 0 and 1 of each bit" to represent
all the values in [-32768, 32767].

because the 0 is a null

No, it's the label for one of the two states of an abstract binary digit.

and therefore holds nothing,

non sequitur.

it is therefore
blank.

non sequitur.

there is noting for the head to interact with.

What head?

magnetic heads by way
of the laws of magnetics and other associated fields, can only interact with
another magnetic field, or induce a magnetic field. but that's getting into
how magnetic heads work and completely off topic.

So why raise the subject?


read the previous statement

That would be this?

a number that uses the full 2 bytes, that is both the 0 and 1 of
each bit, goes up to 65536

So tell us: what's the 16-bit pattern that represents 65536?

transistors do not work with null values, aka the abscence of a magnetic
field strong enough to trigger the gate,

Transistors do not work with magnetic fields at all.

it is the same with magnetic heads,
there may be some residual magnetic field on a HDD platter, but if it is not
strong enough to be picked up by the head, the head counts it as a null, or
for the sake of argument, a 0

Ah. Add magnetic recording techniques to the long list of things you are entirely ignorant about. You don't seriously imagine they record 1 and 0 as simply "magnetised" or "not magnetised", do you? Even basic floppy-disk MFM isn't that naive.

read previous statement, transistors, or magnetic heads, do not interact
with null values.

Better work on those semantics, then. When you write "a MUCH simpler way
is to [...] produce a table of 2^512 entries.", most readers will assume
you are advocating doing just that.

when i say much simpler, i mean it would require more atoms in the universe
to calculate every hash of every key of every salt value, than what would be
required to just create a table for every possible variation of 512 bits,
keeping with the analogy that one entry in the table is one atom. i'm not
advocating anything, because, as we both agree, creating a table of such a
size is quite literally impossible unless one is including every sub atomic
particle of normal matter, as well as every photon within their matter in
the universe count. if creating a table of 2^512 entries is impossible, than
creting a hash table of 2^576 is stupifyingly so.

--
Richard Herring
.