Stryker/C-130 Pics

L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.

Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable

It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.

That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).

331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple
machines).

15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested

It took 1757 days.

Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
from RSA Labs for the correct key.

2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for
the
task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

And right.