Petr Swedock <petr@blade-runner.mit.edu> 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.

I'm glad you've explained it to me.

> 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.

So, this means that because a person with a billion in spare change
lying about might (MIGHT!) be able to break a 1024 bit key every year,
we should all panic?

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com
--
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."