I have it on good authority that they *do* have the systems and just use
them for, well, work! And that, for all the cycles at their in-house
disposal, they don't have nearly enough for the data they get in that
has to be processed.
gerry
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"?
Or do they simply not have systems that are that impressive? :P
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
--
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
