[RC5] I think we found our next contest...

Aaron W. Swenson aswenson at frontiernet.net
Fri Dec 14 09:47:45 EST 2001


         Well, you are right in the respect that my "guestimate" was pulled 
out of thin air.  And that's what guestimates are.  They are somewhat based 
on fact, and mostly intuition.

         And I realize that 64bit processing won't be in every house by the 
end of next year. Or even in two years, however, you don't know that either 
(nudge, nudge, pulling facts from nothing.)   Software always dictates the 
need for something more powerful (unless your a super geek who needs to 
have the best immediately.)

         Yeah, it may take "ages" to crack AES, and it may take a lot more 
than 128 CPUs.  And, no, there hasn't been a contest announced...yet.  But 
this was in response to DES, read the following:

 >Yea even in less time... My mistake.. :-) but still... AES might take too
 >damn long. Besides, who is gonna crack DES? Dnetc is nice but who has got as
 >much processing power available as they do? you'll need a ****load of money
 >to get that much power :-)

         See the "Besides, who is gonna crack DES anyway?" statement and 
the "you'll need a ****load of money to get that much power" statement? 
Which would explain why I even said anything in the first place about a 
Linux cluster, and that there are documents that aren't time 
sensitive.  Also, the Linux cluster isn't supposed to be faster.  If you 
actually read my email, you'd notice that i never said anything about it 
being faster.  What I did say is that it's just as POWERFUL as SOME super 
computers.  The point I was trying to prove was that it doesn't take a lot 
of money to get a lot of processing power. By the way, the actual cost to 
build a computer with 1GHz Athlon, 64MB RAM, Linux, real stripped down is 
$400-$450. So, $450 * 64 = $28,800.  If you want a dual CPU it'll be 
$600-$650, so $650 * 64 = $41,600.

         Alas, one more thing.  The US Government is the LARGEST employer 
in the United States.  If they did distributed computing with every single 
CPU power they have, they would be able to crack JUST ABOUT (**NOTICE** I 
said just about) anything.  And some of these posts I've been reading seem 
to give the opinion that we (The good ol' US of A) are the only country in 
the world with our technology, and a lot of money.  Did you know that in 
France, half of the population works for the government, each one has their 
own PC to work on.  That middle eastern countries do have computers (They 
may not have as many as us, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the 
Taliban has more than none and more than $50,000 dollars.)

Aaron.

At 12:09 AM 12/14/2001 +0000, you wrote:

>At 13.12.2001 20:07, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>>There are some things that aren't time sensitive (i.e.: blueprints, long 
>>term plans, relations).  Also, if they have about $50,000, then they can 
>>build a 64 node Linux cluster utilizing AMD Athlon processors.  That's 
>>just as powerful as some $21 million super computers.  So, you don't need 
>>a "**** load" of money to get a lot of processing power.   Okay, okay, it 
>>seems like a lot to us, but not to some one/thing that has millions or 
>>billions.
>
>Well, you've missed an instrumental point about brute-force cracking of 
>encryption.
>The reason a $50,000 cluster *MIGHT* perform as good as some $21M 
>supercomputer
>is that for certain types of computations big computers doesn't scale as 
>well as
>a distributed effort.
>
>A 64 Node cluster (given 2 cpus pr cluster) would running the dnetc client 
>probably
>perform pretty equal with a 128 CPU computer as all the CPUs are cracking at
>full speed, there isn't any improvement in speed on bruteforce cracking by
>distributing/centralizing the effort.
>
>The only real difference is the practical matters such as maintaining the 
>installation.
>
>
>>And yeah, AES might take to long, but it won't be long before we can 
>>crack that code in 22 hours as well (under ten years.)  I haven't seen 
>>anybody mention the 64bit processor development.  Intel already has 64bit 
>>processors, and AMD is developing theirs and should have some available 
>>by 2003.  Of course Intel's 64bit processors are aimed at the server 
>>market, however, AMD's is aimed at the home market.
>
>We've worked on rc5-64 for 4 years, and 4 years ago it wasn't near as 
>uncompletable
>as AES seems today. I think you'll have to, at least with conventional 
>computing (keeping
>quantum-computing et al out of this), double or almost triple your guestimate.
>
>I don't know what numbers or nuggets of information you base your 
>guestimate on, but
>it seems to be taken out of nowhere and isn't supported by any information 
>I've
>ever seen...
>
>The speed of bruteforcing cryptography is neither a priority when 
>developing CPUs or
>directly proportional to the development of new CPUs.
>
>Take the PIV (and P3) for example which all are an improvement (in some 
>respect) on
>the preceding CPUs, but their improvement in rc5 rates where rater meager...
>
>>I've herd the Dnet staff make mention about 64bit encryption fitting 
>>nicely into two 32bit registers.  Correct me if I'm wrong, AES is a 
>>128bit encryption process, so it should fit nicely into two 64bit registers.
>
>How many 64bit systems have you got access to?
>         It would be many years until a "64 bit on every desk in every home".
>
>There isn't a competition for AES announced as far as I know, and the 
>scientific
>return of cracking AES is rather sparse, it would prove that AES takes ages to
>bruteforce even on a huge supercomputer such as dnet...
>
>Results of bruteforcing has been proven before (and is currently being 
>proven with
>rc5-64).
>
>When the rc5-64 project is finished, I wouldn't be a stranger to 
>introducing projects
>similar to those of UnitedDevices, cancer-research or other medicalbased 
>research
>is a good thing to support (even though I've got somewhat controversial 
>opinions on
>the evolution of modern medicine)...
>
>--
>Andreas D Landmark / noXtension
>Real Time, adj.:
>         Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only occurs there
>and then.
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001


More information about the rc5 mailing list