[RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #287

Thore HaraldHøye thoye at online.no
Mon May 31 20:47:00 EDT 1999


"John R T Brazier" <jbrazier at proproco.co.uk> writes:

> For me, whilst I appreciate the feelings of other contributors, this
> d.net project may have a crucial effect on civil liberties in the
> future, by providing evidence for those interested in privacy and
> personal protection. The recent Wassenaar Agreement

I can't see why, we knew before we started how much time it would
take to break, depending on how much CPU power was available.

> cypher). The NSA (godfathers of the agreement's text) would have
> everyone believe that 64 bits is 'uncrackable', and at the minute they
> are technically correct.

No, they just say it's difficult, and I think we're proving them
right.

> Of course, 64 bits is breakable, and the efforts through d.net will
> prove it. Even if it takes us 10 years, it proves the point. When you
> consider that the NSA, with dedicated hardware and algorithms, is
> probably at least 1000 times more efficient than d.net (see below),

Everything here is pure math, there's no need to guess about anything.
EFF (?) has already made such a machine, and it's almost as fast as
d.net combined. With two such machines, it would be twice as fast.
Us cracking RC64 doesn't change that either way.

[...]
> than d.net. They may be very much more efficient when we start
> considering d.net's overheads in terms of management and
> communications. By the way, these are finger in the air estimates!

Definitely. I don't know any numbers myself, though, so I won't
start guessing.

--
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