On 5/14/2014 6:11 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> Well... Apart from the assumption I stated just below (ie. single
> bit flip for AES), I cannot begin to think about an error I might
> have done with this one, apart from misunderstanding Wikipedia's
> statement that "The processing rate cannot be higher
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:15:40PM -0700, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> >First, the Margolus-Levitin limit: "6.10^33 ops.J^{-1}.s^{-1} maximum"
> >So, dividing the 2^128 by 6.10^33 gives me a bit less than 57000 J.s
> >(assuming testing an AES key is a single operation). So, that's less than
> >1min fo
10^10 * 10^6 = 10^16. So far your estimate is off by a factor of a
thousand trillion.
*Ten* thousand trillion. Sorry, that one's entirely my error.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-us
First, the Margolus-Levitin limit: "6.10^33 ops.J^{-1}.s^{-1} maximum"
So, dividing the 2^128 by 6.10^33 gives me a bit less than 57000 J.s
(assuming testing an AES key is a single operation). So, that's less
than 1min for 1kJ. Pretty affordable, I believe.
No. But since I'm going to be giv
Hi Werner,
thanks a lot for Your freely explications! - This was really interesting
for me...
another question ist the VAT for about 5212,-- €
> The legal entity behind GnuPG is my company g10 code. This is a
> commercial entity and we have to pay VAT on all donations (19% from the
> amount we
On May 14, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Sin Trenton wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Just out of curiousity, are there any plans for including Threefish into
> GnuPG?
> Or does it have to be incorprorated into the OpenPGP standard first and
> *then* perhaps baked into GnuPG?
Yes. GnuPG follows the OpenPGP
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:21:36PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Since the well known agency from Baltimore uses its influence to have
> > crypto standards coast close to the limit of the brute-forceable, 128
> > bit AES will be insecure not too far in the future.
>
> No.
>
> https://www.gnu
Hello everyone,
Just out of curiousity, are there any plans for including Threefish into
GnuPG?
Or does it have to be incorprorated into the OpenPGP standard first and
*then* perhaps baked into GnuPG?
In simple curiousity and because I have a soft spot for Twofish[1]
Sin Trenton
[1] Soft sp
I might have to ask Robert how comfortable his new asbestos longjohns are.
Rather, as evidenced by my willingness to try and tackle this one.
To a first approximation, trust is confidence in the future's
predictability. My friends who grew up in dictatorships tell me the
uncertainty was fa
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:26:31PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> > Ah. Interesting. Should I file a proper bug against GnuPG then?
>
> Please do that.
Done. https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1640
Thanks,
--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o
On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:51, aaron.topo...@gmail.com said:
> Ah. Interesting. Should I file a proper bug against GnuPG then?
Please do that.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
___
Gnupg-users mail
> Since the well known agency from Baltimore uses its influence to have
> crypto standards coast close to the limit of the brute-forceable, 128
> bit AES will be insecure not too far in the future.
No.
https://www.gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#brute_force
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:30:21PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> Looks like a bug. Note that on each of the keys that didn't work there is a
> direct signature on the key. This is not very common, and is usually used
> for a designated revoker (i.e. "I permit so-and-so to revoke my key for me").
> I
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:32:07AM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> This behaviour also occurs for me in 2.0.22. Instead of exporting
> the key, you could use --list-keys, which works for me:
Yeah, I'm not interesting in running it from the keyring, as I am assuming that
the key is not imported, b
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:58, fizzli...@posteo.net said:
> What for is this campaign manager? - Is this a part of goteo or of
> gnupg or somebody else?
This is what I had to pay to Sam for his work on the campaign. My
friends at the FSFE suggested that I should run a campaign as soon as
possible an
On 14/05/14 09:47, Michael Anders wrote:
> Since the well known agency from Baltimore uses its influence to have
> crypto standards coast close to the limit of the brute-forceable, 128
> bit AES will be insecure not too far in the future.
Brute-forcing a 128 bits key is, as far as we know, impossi
Hello,
I would like to suggest a probably easier alternative to my proposal
"sign encrypted emails":
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2014-January/048681.html
The purpose is that the recipient can be sure that the message has left
the sending system encrypted (and: encrypted for a
>
> GPG encrypted data (using RSA) can be collected today and easily decrypted
> after 50-100 years using a quantum computer. See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
Well let's see. Usually in a new technology, once you are really going
to apply it in the real world, new problems
18 matches
Mail list logo
