[rc5] Future distributed.net projects
gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Wed Oct 1 20:03:16 EDT 1997
Well, it's no easier than RC5. And it illustrates the continuing
point that no *particular* level of encryption is sufficient,
especially to be legislated. The process of legislation is too slow
to respond to normal increase in computing power, much less the sudden
increases that improved technologies tend to bestow.
RC5-64 would disallow the claim that "maybe 56 bits wasn't enough,
but 64 is." We have to dissuade anyone from thinking that there is
*any* limit which can be safely mandated.
-- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at Okway.okstate.edu
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [rc5] Future distributed.net projects
Author: <rc5 at llamas.net > at SMTP
Date: 1997/09/30 22:38
> By eyeball at http://home.pacbell.net/cwax/bovineg.html, the Bovine
> effort seems to double its number of completed keys count every 2.5
> weeks. Current keyrate is 5Gkps.
> Let's say:
> 1. We start RC5-64 right now.
[snip]> So, in 3 years, we could exhaust the keyspace. We'd "probably"
> the key in about 18 months. This is so terrible?
> -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Perhaps RC5-64 is practicable, but the more practicable it becomes, the
less point there is in doing it. We've made our point about encryption with
rc5-56 - the factor of 2^8 isn't big enough to alter it. If there's some
specific reason why it would be good to do 64 bits rather than move on to
something else, then all well and good, but until then, proofs of its being
an easy-ish problem are going to discourage me from taking part rather than
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
More information about the rc5