Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge II was broken in 72 hours by
$250,000 worth of semi-custom machine, for the sake of solidity let's
assume they used 2^55 work to break it. Now moving to a comp
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 03:29:21PM +, Ian G wrote:
> Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> >Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Eventually email will just collapse (as it's doing) and the RBOCs et al will
> >>inherit it and we'll all be paying 15c per message like their SMS services.
> >
> >And the
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:55:15AM -0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> From: "Serguei Osokine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Peer-to-peer development." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [p2p-hackers] SHA1 broken?
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:11:07 -0800
>
> Okay, so the effective SHA-1 length is 138 bits
--
James A. Donald
> > > As governments were created to smash property rights,
> > > they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those
> > > with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the
> > > most property.
Steve Thompson
> > Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'governme
--
> There is however a huge problem replace SHA-1 by something
> else from now to tomorrow: Other algorithms are not as well
> anaylyzed and compared against SHA-1 as for example AES to
> DES are; so there is no immediate successor of SHA-1 of whom
> we can be sure to withstand the possible ne
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:13:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP: id=0xB88D52E4D9F57808; algo=1 (RSA); size=4096;
url=http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN P
Thus spake Peter Gutmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [16/02/05 01:04]:
: Hmmm, and maybe *that* will finally motivate software companies, end users,
: ISPs, etc etc, to fix up software, systems, and usage habits to prevent this.
Doubt it'll motivate the ISPs. They'll be the ones making the 15c/msg. If
t
All this chatter and everyone pointing to the same page ... but no paper,
no proof ... just mindless chatter.
Anyone know where this ghost paper is?
pgpci4qQOyaKy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[snip]
> > Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to
> say
> > nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness
> of
> > enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient
> > exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state.
>
On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> --- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human,
> > it
> > is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property
> > is
> > stolen from someone
--
On 16 Feb 2005 at 0:30, Justin wrote:
> Judging from social dynamics and civil advancement in the
> animal kingdom, monarchies developed first and property
> rights were an afterthought.
Recently existent neolithic agricultural peoples, for example
the New Guineans, seldom had kings, and
- Original Message -
From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SHA1 broken?
2^69 is damn near unbreakable.
I believe you are incorrect in this statement. It is a matter of public
record that RSA Security's DES Challenge II was broken in 72 hours by
$250,000 worth of semi
--- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human,
> it
> is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property
> is
> stolen from someone else at tax-time.
Bzzt. I call you on your bullshit.
Supposedl
--- Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > --- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're
> human,
> > > it
> > > is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particu
On 2005-02-16T13:18:16-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> --- Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > > --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip]
> > > > As governments were created to smash property rights, they are
> > > > always ev
--- Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > As governments were created to smash property rights, they are
> > > always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property,
At 8:12 PM -0500 2/16/05, Barry Shein wrote:
>And how do you fund all this, make it attain an economic life of its
>own?
I can send you a business plan, if you like. Post-Clinton-Bubble talent's
still cheap, I bet...
;-)
Still estivating, here, in Roslindale,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Het
On 1108637369 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Dave Howe wrote:
>
> Its fine assuming that moore's law will hold forever, but without
>that you can't really extrapolate a future tech curve. with *todays*
>technology, you would have to spend an appreciable fraction of the
>nationa
Wrong. We already solved this problem on Cypherpunks a while back.
A spammer will have to pay to send you spam, trusted emails do not. You'll
have a settable Spam-barrier which determines how much a spammer has to pay
in order to lob spam over your barrier (you can set it to 'infinite' of
course
And how do you fund all this, make it attain an economic life of its
own?
That's the big problem with all micropayment schemes. They sound good
until you try to work the business plan, then they prove themselves
impossible because it costs 2c to handle each penny. And more if
issues such as colle
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eventually email will just collapse (as it's doing) and the RBOCs et al will
inherit it and we'll all be paying 15c per message like their SMS services.
And the spammers will be using everyone else's PC's to send out their spam,
Well, basically it's pretty simple. Someone will eventually recognize that
the idea has a lot of economic potential and they'll go to Sand Hill and get
some venture funds. 6 months later you'll be able to sign up for "Spam
Mail". Eventually the idea will spread and Spammers, who are already
squ
Bingo, that's the whole point, spam doesn't get "fixed" until there's
a robust economics available to fix it. So long as it's treated merely
an annoyance or security flaw there won't be enough economic
backpressure.
On February 16, 2005 at 18:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Gutmann) wrote:
> Barry
23 matches
Mail list logo
