(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
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 re
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 dead
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 computation
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 t
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 informat
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
