On 09/08/2013 01:45 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 4:59 PM, Filip M. Nowak wrote:
>> Is CAMELLIA's pick as least preferred cipher - omitted/disregarded by
>> NIST (US) but certified by NESSIE (EU) and CRYPTREC (Japan) - is somehow
>> related to those revelations?
>
> NIST couldn't consi
Hello everybody, I'm a beginner of Gpg and encryption's world in general,
so I apologize if my questions will be so banal.
I created a new pair of public-private keys and now I'm trying to export
the public one.
I read the "How-To" and it describe the more useful option --armour. I
can't understan
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
:
>> http://oletange.blogspot.dk/2013/09/life-long-key-size.html
:
> but I'm pretty sure it's relevant for the
> battery life of you
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 5:35 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
>> Feel free to let me know if you feel I have left out important concerns.
:
> You're projecting 87 years into the future. Why should we have any
> confidence in your analysis?
The short answer: You
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Francesco C.
wrote:
> Hello everybody, I'm a beginner of Gpg and encryption's world in general, so
> I apologize if my questions will be so banal.
Hi Francesco,
Welcome! No need to apologize! We're all pretty friendly here. :)
> I created a new pair of public-pri
Pete Stephenson wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Francesco C.
>
>
>Hi Francesco,
>
>Welcome! No need to apologize! We're all pretty friendly here. :)
>
I'm glad to know that. :-)
>You can add "--armor" (or "--armour", I had no idea that GnuPG
>supported the British spelling of the word
On 9/8/2013 4:32 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> The short answer: You do not have to trust projection to use the
> other findings. If you have a better projection, use that instead.
I do, actually. If I see that a major part of your write-up is
seriously lacking in rigor, that causes me to suspect the r
On Sunday 08 September 2013 10:29:18 Ole Tange wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Ingo Klöcker
wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> >>
> >> http://oletange.blogspot.dk/2013/09/life-long-key-size.html
Am So 08.09.2013, 11:07:21 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
Once more I feel enlightened (and I am sure I am not the only one). From time
to time it seems appropriate to me that someone says thank you. So this time I
do that.
--
Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/bekannte/
OpenPGP
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 01:47:44PM +0200, Francesco S. wrote:
>
>
> Pete Stephenson wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Francesco C.
> >
> >
> >Hi Francesco,
> >
> >Welcome! No need to apologize! We're all pretty friendly here. :)
> >
>
> I'm glad to know that. :-)
>
> >You can add "--a
Hi
On 09/08/2013 05:07 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 9/8/2013 4:32 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
>> The short answer: You do not have to trust projection to use the
>> other findings. If you have a better projection, use that instead.
>
> (...)
> We can't be sure 2048-bit keys will be broken by 2100.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
As must I. Robert has one of the clearest modes of exposition from
which I have ever been fortunate to benefit.
- --Avi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
Comment: Most recent key: Click show in box @ http://is.gd/4xJrs
On 09/08/2013 04:02 PM, Filip M. Nowak wrote:
[snip]
> "Breakthroughs in factoring have occurred regularly over the past
> several decades, allowing us to break ever-larger public keys. Much of
> the public-key cryptography we use today involves elliptic curves,
> something that is even more ripe f
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 03:15:24PM -0400, Avi wrote:
> As must I. Robert has one of the clearest modes of exposition from
> which I have ever been fortunate to benefit.
I have to agree on this point.
The issue is that I disagree with him on his stance : in my opinion, having a
schedule stating wh
On 09/08/2013 02:00 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
And this means that, as long as the drawbacks associated with the use of the key
are assumed by the key owner only (as the tables state, encrypt and verify
operations being almost unchanged in time), preconizing 10kbit RSA keys is no
issue, and can only
On 9/8/2013 5:00 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> BTW, the statement "[Dan Boneh] proved that breaking RSA is not
> equivalent to factoring" is wrong : he did not prove that breaking
> RSA is easier than factoring numbers ; only that a whole ways of
> proving that breaking RSA is as hard as factoring nu
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:29:01PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> A factor of 125 is so small as to be irrelevant.
Well... If factoring takes a month, with the factor of 125, it takes ten years.
Seems not that irrelevant to me.
Of course, this is made using completely made up numbers, as I do n
On 09/08/2013 06:54 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> Well... If factoring takes a month, with the factor of 125, it takes
> ten years. Seems not that irrelevant to me.
Or you wait three years and let technological progression reduce the
work factor for you. Or you throw 125 machines at it instead of one
18 matches
Mail list logo
