> >Those are essentially the numbers I came up with as well. However (and I
> >admit to being fairly new to this), how many current schemes can be
broken
> >solely through brute force? Are any of them vulnerable to more elegant
> >(albeit computationally intensive) attacks?
>You miss the point. Any system can be broken by brute force; the
>notion of a more elegant attack that will also take more time is
>nonexistent. Brute force is always the worst-case breaking time, so
>anything that is considered 'more elegant' will be doable in faster
>than brute force time.
I said "more elegant (albeit computationally intensive) attacks", not more
elegant and longer attacks. There are oftentimes more than one way to crack
a code, and some of them are more elegant and, while faster, are still
computationally intensive.
