On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
You can't object to scientific theories on the basis that you did not
study them properly. It might have a bit of a Socratic feel to it, but
it quite falls short of the real thing.
Just for the record: I do not feel like I ever
On 17/05/14 01:12, Leo Gaspard wrote:
Well... If the operation the bit just underwent was a bitflip (and, knowing
the
bruteforcing circuit, it's possible to know that), the bit was a '0'.
I admit this is beyond my knowledge, but maybe the following is rather
intuitive and not too incorrect.
(This mail originally got dropped by the list managing software because
I had accidentally misused a new webmail plugin. I'm resending it
with all original identifiers so it hopefully threads correctly. I'm
also completely ignoring section 3.6.6 of RFC 2822, but who cares? ;)
---
I suddenly
On 2014-05-17 15:28, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Another way of looking at it: RAM is normally implemented as a
flipflop.
I think the register bank in a processor is still implemented as
flipflops, and all computation ends up there (on a register machine)[1],
so your statement is correct in that
However, the word normally is not quite apt. What you normally call
the RAM of your computer is DRAM, and DRAM is implemented by a charge on
a capacitor. This achieves much higher densities on a chip than SRAM,
but is also slower.
Point, but I think it's equivalent: whether it's a flipflop
On 2014-05-17 19:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Point, but I think it's equivalent: whether it's a flipflop getting a
signal or a microcapacitor that's charging/discharging, in both cases
previous state is getting obliterated and the entropic cost accrues.
:)
Absolutely, no argument there. In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 15 May 2014 at 5:55:08 PM, in
mid:ac4ef92f2c0a44f147cb3fedeb2ea...@butters.digitalbrains.com,
Peter Lebbing wrote:
Decryption using a wrench rather than a key;
http://xkcd.com/538/ (don't forget the on-hover text!)
I guess I
First: I agree with everything skipped in the quotes.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 5/14/2014 6:11 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
BTW: AFAICT, a nuclear warhead (depending on the warhead, ofc.) does
not release so much energy, it just releases it in a deadly
This is the last I will be saying on the subject. I am not interested
in teaching a course on thermodynamics.
Well... A nuclear reactor produces 1GW, and thus produces 1PJ in
10^6 s, that is approx. 11 days 14 hrs. Sure, you may be very
interested in Health Safety compliance of nuclear
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 5/14/2014 6:11 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
[snip]
* You state it is a lower bound on the energy consumed/generated by
bruteforcing. Having a closer look at the Wikipedia page, I just
found this sentence: If no information is
On 5/15/2014 8:30 AM, gnupg-users@gnupg.org wrote:
The save of 64 bits to 1 bit loses you 6 bits exponential complexity,
the increase of the expected number of tries increases it again by 1
bit, so you have saved 2^5 = 32 = 10^1.5 on the numbers Rob gives. When
I'm quickly reading through the
On 2014-05-15 14:30, gnupg-users@gnupg.org wrote:
Leo called it 10^5, Rob called it 10^3. If you save 63 bitflips on a
total of a million, that doesn't change the final numbers in the
least.
Pull out some hairs and you still have a beard: 10^3 - 63 = 10^3.
Incidentally, we went from 100
I notice that the Wikipedia article refers here to thermodynamically
reversible which is perhaps not the same thing as computationally
reversible. So I looked up thermodynamically reversible and found
At the level we're talking about, the distinction between
thermodynamics and computational
Incidentally, we went from 100 nuclear warheads to 3 to 100,000[3].
So, I can put you down as solidly in the eco-catastrophe camp, then? :)
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 2014-05-15 18:25, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
So, I can put you down as solidly in the eco-catastrophe camp, then?
:)
Oh, definitely. Unless our understanding of computing at the physical
limits drastically changes, I think blunt-force cryptanalysis is way
better than brute-force.
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.
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
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 than
18 matches
Mail list logo
