| 1 |
On 11/10/2015 09:31 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/10/2015 02:23 PM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 11/10/2015 09:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On 11/10/2015 02:00 PM, Jeff Smelser wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> I guess from this your assuming that everyones passwords that |
| 7 |
>>>> have been hacked are god, birthdays and such? |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Again: assume that I'm not an idiot, and that I know how to choose |
| 10 |
>>> a long, random password. It cannot be brute-forced. And if it |
| 11 |
>>> could, adding an SSH key encrypted with a password of the same |
| 12 |
>>> length would provide no extra security. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> Are you sure you know how such keys work? An extremely 15 character |
| 16 |
>> password (Upper case, lower case, numbers, 8 more symbols) gives you |
| 17 |
>> ~4747561509943000000000000000 combinations |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> And since no one seems to believe me, if you could try a million |
| 20 |
> passwords a second (over the network!), it would take you about |
| 21 |
> 75,272,093,955,210 years to try half of those combinations. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
I know that brute forcing a password is hard. I'm not stating the opposite. But brute forcing a 2048 bit key is not 2 times slower, it's 2398748237489237489 times slower. And you don't need a password for a key! I think that's the right time to end this conversation, it won't lead to anything good. |
Archives