| 1 |
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Chris Walters wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dirk Heinrichs wrote: |
| 3 |
> | If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they |
| 4 |
> | use themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the |
| 5 |
> | key of the GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's |
| 6 |
> | assumptions, would keep 15 million modern PCs busy for a year. |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | And, if it is so easy for them, it is as easy for other governments |
| 9 |
> | too, right? That would mean they use a cipher that's easily |
| 10 |
> | crackable by other governments. Do you really think they do? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I didn't say it was "easy". All I said is that it is possible, with |
| 13 |
> enough resources, to crack keys. I very much doubt that the NSA |
| 14 |
> would be interested in cracking the key of the GPCode virus, since |
| 15 |
> they are more directed to the National Security of the US. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> As for other governments, if they have large networks of |
| 18 |
> supercomputers, and cryptanalysis experts, then it would probably be |
| 19 |
> just as probable that they could crack any key from any publicly used |
| 20 |
> cipher algorithm. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is the point where I start to ask for a citation and stop listening |
| 23 |
to theoretical possibilities and things that might possibly could be. |
| 24 |
Unless of course the exact meaning of phrases like "three hundred |
| 25 |
thousand million years" has a different meaning in your universe than |
| 26 |
it does in mine. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 32 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives