And this analysis doesn't even take into account remote viewing :-).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petr Swedock" <petr@blade-runner.mit.edu>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Cc: "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de>; <mipam@ibb.net>; "Matthias Buelow" <mkb@mukappabeta.de>; "Stefan Krüger"
<skrueger@europe.com>; <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; <tech-security@netbsd.org>; <misc@openbsd.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)


> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
>
> > "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de> writes:
> >
> > I would have thought spending at least hundreds of millions off
> > dollars and (as importantly) at least months of time would have been
> > considered "unattractive" enough to encourage other methods of getting
> > at your data like breaking in to your physical location. Silly me. I
> > guess I missed the concept behind crypto.
>
> The concept behind crypto is to confuse, scramble and obfuscate. When
> it was first designed for and employed in computers the existing
> mathematical models, computer muscle and modes of analysis were
> thought to assure unbreakability.  Now the use has morphed into
> a race condition where present mathematical models and future
> computer muscle, coupled with existing modes of analysis are
> thought to assure breakability.
>
> Peace,
>
> Petr
>