Jim Lux wrote:
At 01:02 PM 9/2/2007, Kyle Spaans wrote:
On 9/1/07, Robert G. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RSA and DES and MD5 are considered "probably uncrackable" by
> anyone with less than NSA-class resources, but of course this bot-cloud
> is several orders of magnitude more powerful than NSA's probable setup.
Why a "probable setup" ? I would agree that the NSA likely has a hefty
HPC sitting around somewhere - but why don't we know about it? If the
NSA goes through all the work of putting together a (not trying to
sound pessimistic/conspiracy theorist)
good-enough-to-crack-your-encryption-for-public-safety cluster, why
wouldn't they have it up on the top500 list? Not wanting to gloat? Not
wanting the "badguys to know what we've got"?
NSA has a generic aversion to publicity of any kind.
Read "The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford.
Another good book that provides some insight into the way of thinking is
Crypto by Steven Levy
Both should be required reading (and it's time to re-read "The Puzzle
Palace") before asking open-ended questions about the organization whose
very name was once classified, and whose acronym was expanded to, in
most instances, "No Such Agency".
gerry
--
Gerry Creager -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
