| 1 |
On 11/10/2015 02:32 PM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 11/10/2015 09:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 11/10/2015 02:23 PM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Are you sure you know how such keys work? An extremely 15 character |
| 7 |
>>> password (Upper case, lower case, numbers, 8 more symbols) gives you |
| 8 |
>>> ~4747561509943000000000000000 combinations. Just a simple 2048 bit |
| 9 |
>>> key on the other hand (~180 of which are "secure") |
| 10 |
>>> 1532495540865888858358347027150309183618739122183602176. Thats ALOT |
| 11 |
>>> moar. You don't have to generate the key from a password! |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> I don't have to brute-force the key. The key is encrypted with a |
| 14 |
>> password. How long is that password? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> 1) The key is not encrypted. |
| 19 |
> 2) You don't need a password to generate a key. |
| 20 |
> 3) Don't go full retard, do your research before arguing. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I guess I'll just say that I'm fine with it taking trillions of years to |
| 24 |
hack my systems and give up. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Yes, adding another key would make it take longer than trillions of |
| 27 |
years. So would increasing the password length. |
Archives