-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
I'm kind of the founder of this mailing-list, so you better listen now:
On Sunday 07 October 2001 19:17, IT3 Stuart B. Tener, USNR-R wrote:
> Mr. Hospel, et al.:
>
> You can ignore the license, its just the idea that people have the
> nerve to complain that I use outlook, it is so outrageous. I am
> sorry, but that is the email client I am forced to use as I have many
> customers which force me to use the calendaring and other functions
> which are tied to the email.
It is _not_ the sole fact that you use Outlook what makes people here
complaining. I think it is a combination of the following things (at
least it is for _me_):
a. You are constantly violating nettiquette on this list through:
a1. Quoting the entire mail without referring to the quoted material
a2. Including an overly long signature with (wrt. to this list)
useless contact information.
b. What's worth, you respond to polite requests to change that by
pretending to be a dumb "what's that pointer for?" user with an "I
don't change defaults" or "I'm forced to leave the settings as they
are" attitude.
c. You show off your ignorance in discussions with people working in the
field of cryptgraphy and pretend to comprehend what they say while
obviously failing to do so. For a nice example, see the "12GHz"
discussion.
You are specifically _not_ attacked here because you use Windows (or
Outlook for that matter).
Sorry, I can't believe you are unable to find the switch that disables
the automatic quoting of the entire message. You are simply too lazy to
cut the quote down to what's essential.
=> In netscape, see Preferences->Mail&Newsgroups->Messages
->Automatically quote the original message when replying.
I can't believe you are unable to find the switch in outlook that
disables the Reply-To header, which is equal to your From: header and
thus superfluous. Again, you are too lazy to do this.
=> In netscape, see Preferences->Mail&Newsgroups->Identity
->Reply-To address (only needed if different from email address) (!!)
If I see one more complaint from _you_ about the other list members, I
will make sure you're removed from this list.
End of official part.
As to the 12Ghz discussion:
You should read at least "Applied Cryptography" if you want to make
educated statements on crypto. Most cryptography is about math and esp.
about probability and probability very often counters "common sense".
Brute-forcing >100bit keys reaches physical limits quickly.
Let's do some crazy assumptions:
Assume every atom in the universe could test 1/(Planck time) keys per
unit time and you had all of them at your command.
Age of the Universe (upper consensus limit): 18*10^9 yrs
Mass of the Universe (in hydrogen atoms): 4*10^78
Planck time: 5.3906*10^-44 sec
Now put this together:
1/(5.3906*10^-44)*4*10^78 keys/sec
= 4/5.3906 *10^(44+78) keys/sec
\approx 1*10^122 keys/sec
= 1*18*60*60*24*356*10^9*10^122 keys/age of universe
\approx 5.5*10^8*10^(9+122) keys/age
= 5.5*10^139 keys/age
\approx 10^140 keys/age
\approx 2^(140*3) keys/age
= 2^420 keys/age
So if you had all this computing power at your fingertips, and you tried
breaking a key since the big bang; had the key owner thought wisely and
selected a 512bits key (symmetric, that is; asymmetric is a completely
different story!), you'd have a
one-in-a-thousand-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion
chance of having cracked that single key already.
Now, 512 is of course much larger than 100, but the assumptions were
extraordinarily oversized (a single atom would be a more powerful
computer than onehundret-thousand-billion-billion-billion Teraflop
computers combined; testing a key would take _one_ operation, etc).
You should be able to follow the computation with real timeframes (say,
100 yrs) and less oversized numbers of computers (say, only the number
of atoms the _earth_ consists of) and computer power (say, the
millionfold current combined power of all processors intel and AMD
manufactured this year).
Marc
- --
I am Bush of USA. You will be pacified. Resistance is futile.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7wcIq3oWD+L2/6DgRAhxoAKDwoT1hpP0Ye3dr0MdOPOKNbQZN3ACgvtJI
f1qWhiQjIMOCrlmXiJhPDqg=
=X9r5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
