[RC5] An idea for making our point about RC5-56
danh at firstwest.com
Thu Jul 30 16:18:56 EDT 1998
I agree. Is there really any point in show that tens of thousands of
computers working together (think of how many computers need to be added to
dnet for us to crack RC5-64 in two years) need years to crack RC5-64. If I
was looking at this it would only improve my opinion of the encryption
scheme. Proving that current US laws are dense was the entire point (Or I
was under that impression when I started). Let's focus on the point we
really want to make. I realize that there are no contests on going for this,
and there will never be a prize, but is dnet in this for the money??
From: Jeffrey William Baker <jwb at tamu.edu>
To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 2:10 PM
Subject: [RC5] An idea for making our point about RC5-56
>An earlier post indicated that we might be doing more harm than good by
>showing just how long it takes to crack RC5-64. Since 56-bit is
>currently the highest exportable system, I have an idea: why don't we
>just crack RC5-56 over and over again?
>By my calculations, we could exhaust an RC5-56 keyspace every month. We
>could plot our progress to estimate when we could crack arbitrary RC5-56
>messages in 1 day. Then our message could be that RC5-56 has a useful
>lifetime of only x years!
>Just a thought, let me know what you think.
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5