[RC5] An idea for making our point about RC5-56

gindrup at okway.okstate.edu gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Fri Jul 31 11:38:19 EDT 1998


     There are many reasons to be involved in D.Net.  You only mention 
     two and I mentioned several in a recent post.
     
     However, what is often missed when stating that so many thousands of 
     machines are doing this is:
     This is all being done in idle time.
     It costs nothing to do.
     (Re-)Writing the distributed clients is not hard.
     Managing the proxy network is not hard.
     
     If we had 17000 dedicated P5MMX/233 class or better machines we'd be 
     flying along much faster.  If we converted those machines directly 
     into cash, we'd have ~US$20.4M.  Since it only costs ~US$250k to 
     make a dedicated cracker, we're "getting" only 1.2% of the time on 
     those machines.  (Warning, this is analogic, not deductive.)  So 
     we'd really only need 1 in 80 of those machines if they were 
     dedicated.  200 machines.  200 machines isn't hard to find.  Make 
     them PIIs and you need even fewer.
     
     So, the idle time on 17000 computers is equivalent to 200 dedicated 
     machines is equivalent to one US$250k dedicated piece of hardware.
     
     Don't confuse D.Net with an array of dedicated hardware.  Don't 
     confuse it with a system that requires constant maintenance (q.v., a 
     mainframe).  Don't confuse it with something that is an engineering 
     marvel (q.v., dedicated hardware).  D.Net is notdifficult to 
     duplicat and operates essentially for free.
     
     So with no effort and no money, you too can crack DES messages in a 
     week.
            -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at okway.okstate.edu


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [RC5] An idea for making our point about RC5-56 
Author:  <rc5 at lists.distributed.net> at SMTP
Date:    7/30/98 3:18 PM


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??
     
-----Original Message-----
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
     
     
>Hi all,
>
>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. 
>
>Jeffrey
>--
>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
     
     

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list