andrel wrote:
> On 17-1-2010 16:12, Doctor John wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
>>
>> I hadn't actually noticed that ...
>>
>> <checking>
>>
>> ...you're joking, aren't you?
> 
> I don't think you can create such graphics with an ordinary package like 
> Excel or SPSS. So, yes I might be.

I don't get your sense of humor, but I guess the reciprocal is true. :P

in any case, it looks more like a scan from a manually-drawn chart than 
something generated on PC.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:

> See http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/006.pdf for details of the method

*wooosh*

That was the sound of most of the paper flying straight over my head.

About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people 
are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer 
hardware. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people 
> are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer 
> hardware. o_O

good thing it is researchers spending two years and a half of many 
hundreds of machines rather than thieves. ^^;

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 
>> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
> 
> I hadn't actually noticed that ...
> 
> <checking>
> 
> ...you're joking, aren't you?

Hahaha wtf?

Post a reply to this message

>> About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people 
>> are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer 
>> hardware. o_O
> 
> good thing it is researchers spending two years and a half of many 
> hundreds of machines rather than thieves. ^^;

Heh, good thing I typically use 4,096 bits for an RSA key. (Honestly, as 
far as I can tell, there is no detectable difference in speed at all... 
But it's going to make one hell of a difference to anybody bored enough 
to want to attack a key that belongs to *me* of all people.)

I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the 
certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the 
encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade 
encryption"??

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :

> I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the
> certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the
> encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade
> encryption"??

The purpose of the https is mainly authentication.
Encryption using RC4 is weak anyway, and unpublished (STO: bad!)
RC4 is just quick enough to not bother too much a server.

the 128 bits of the RC4 key are used to generate a pseudo-random bit
sequence, and applying the output to XOR.
It might stop your child from eavesdropping, but that pretty all.
For instance, it is used in Wep (wifi)... and wep-keybreaker are everywhere.

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

>> I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the
>> certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the
>> encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade
>> encryption"??
> 
> The purpose of the https is mainly authentication.

It proves you're giving your credit card details to the right company.

...and it's supposed to prevent anybody listening in from stealing the 
data in transit. So, yes, the encryption part is supposed to actually work!

> Encryption using RC4 is weak anyway, and unpublished (STO: bad!)

Unpublished, but never the less leaked and therefore widely known and 
analysed. As to how weak it is... well, it wouldn't be my first choice.

Interesting that Firefox refers to it as "high-grade encryption". 
(Presumably because it's 128-bit RC4 and not the 40-bit RC4 that USA 
export software used to have to use. That stuff really *is* weak!)

> RC4 is just quick enough to not bother too much a server.

Probably.

> the 128 bits of the RC4 key are used to generate a pseudo-random bit
> sequence, and applying the output to XOR.

This is the definition of "stream cipher", yes. Lots of ciphers work 
this way.

> It might stop your child from eavesdropping, but that pretty all.

It certainly isn't *trivially* breakable by any means. But sure, it 
isn't the cipher I'd choose.

> For instance, it is used in Wep (wifi)... and wep-keybreaker are everywhere.

WEP is broken due to the simplistic way keys are handled, not due to RC4 
itself as such.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the 
> certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the 
> encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade 
> encryption"??

  Number of bits between different encryption algorithms is not comparable.

  For example AES-256 is currently thought to be unbreakable while RSA-512
is not, even though the latter uses twice as many bits.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the 
>> certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the 
>> encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade 
>> encryption"??
> 
>   Number of bits between different encryption algorithms is not comparable.

Most particularly, asymmetric algorithms such as RSA typically require 
far more bits than do symmetric algorithms such as RC4. But sure, it 
also varies by individual cipher of course.

My point was that 128 bits isn't much for *any* symmetric cipher. So 
calling this "high-grade encryption" is somewhat misleading.

2,048 bits for the RSA cipher, OTOH, should be safe for a while yet...

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> For instance, it is used in Wep (wifi)... and wep-keybreaker are everywhere.

Not because RC4 is easy to break, tho, but because RC4 is a stream cypher 
being used to encrypt multiple small unordered packets from multiple 
sources, so most of the key winds up being put into every packet.

RC4 used as a stream cypher is much stronger than RC4 used as a block cypher.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message