Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 08/13/2013 09:36 AM, Richard Pieri wrote: > The NSA has computing facilities measured in acres. I feel like you want me to draw a conclusion. Are you saying 80-bits is not "pretty dang good"? Or are you saying Snowden's "trillion a second" was wrong? Or something else? Maybe Snowden's "trillion a second" advice was for the snoop-on-everything mode. I.E., before the feds knew they were pissed, before Obama or the rest of us had ever heard of Snowden, as a matter of routine, they do a trillion tests a second, on lots of data. Or maybe on limited data. I could believe either. And once they are pissed, and want blood, they can start to deploy real muscle. What could that mean? "Unlimited" as their budget is, there are earthly limits. Let's take an extreme and say they have a trillion dollar password cracker, let's assume they built it as efficiently as some hacker who gives public talks at a conference in Oslo: If $150,000 can do a trillion NTML passwords a second (and who knows what kind of password Snowden was talking about, but let's assume similar difficulty, even though the 25 GPU box was 5-times slower doing sha1 than NTML and any reasonable "password strengthening" would likely help further), then a trillion dollars can do 6.7 quintillion checks a second. I hope I have my math right. (2**80)/6,700,000,000,000,000,000 is 180,436 seconds to test an entire 80-bit space. Or, 50-hours. Worse if we are smart enough to not use Windows. Except, they don't have a trillion dollar password cracker. Our economy isn't big enough for them to have built that without a lot more pain than we have felt. Maybe they only have a 100-billion dollar password cracker. Maybe it is a few years old. Maybe it was built with traditional government efficiency. But even if they did have such an uber-cracker, they couldn't crack many 80-bit passwords in a year. And their electricity bill would be high. So I stand by my "80-bits is pretty dang good". And I still like my earlier claim that 128-bits of entropy stops the NSA from brute forcing. Please let me know if I made any arithmetic errors. -kb
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |