Re: [tor-talk] NSA supercomputer

[Alexandre Guillioud <guillioud.alexandre@xxxxxxxxx>]

So, if you're paranoïd, or doing something where paranoïd behavior is
requested, use a vpn inside and outside tor.
Use linked proxy's on top of this. You'll be fine.


2013/4/4 Alexandre Guillioud <guillioud.alexandre@xxxxxxxxx>

> I may be wrong, but i take for true that NSA as 10 to 30 years advance on
> maths and cryptographic méthod.
>
>
> Le jeudi 4 avril 2013, George Torwell a écrit :
>
> i may be wrong but:
>> - we are talking about keys of every node along the path. how can you
>> increase that just locally?
>> - keep in mind that we dont know if factoring such a key is likely, if i
>> remember correctly that talk mentioned huge amounts of computation power
>> and electricity.
>>     something like a year for a 40 mega watt consuming data center per
>> 1024
>> bit key. <maybe way off, but the point being - its really expensive.>
>>     on the other hand its rumored that the utah data center will have 65
>> mega watts from its own power station.
>> im pretty sure that the developers will move us safely from these keys as
>> soon as its needed :)
>>
>>
>> On 4 April 2013 13:54, Bernard Tyers <ei8fdb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > That's what I was thinking, I just didn't know if there was another
>> > reasons.
>> >
>> > I guess the key size is configured on the Tor node? I haven't found it
>> > anywhere in the configuration (I'm using TBB on OS X).
>> >
>> > Is it possible to increase the size of the key, if say I've got a big
>> > server running as a node?
>> >
>> > If there are nodes using different length keys, is the security relying
>> on
>> > the node with the smallest key length?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Bernard
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Written on my small electric gadget. Please excuse brevity and
>> (possible)
>> > misspelling.
>> >
>> > Alexandre Guillioud <guillioud.alexandre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > >The bigger the key is, the longer (cpu cycle) it take to
>> encrypt/decrypt ?
>> > >
>> > >Le jeudi 4 avril 2013, Bernard Tyers a écrit :
>> > >
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Is there a reason 1024 bit keys, instead of something higher is not
>> > used?
>> > >> Do higher bit keys affect host performance, or network latency?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Bernard
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ----
>> > >> Written on my small electric gadget. Please excuse brevity and
>> > (probable)
>> > >> misspelling.
>> > >>
>> > >> George Torwell <bpmcontrol@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> a second guess would be going after 1024 bit keys.
>> > >> there is also a video on youtube from a recent con about the
>> > feasibility of
>> > >> factoring them, <"fast hacks" or something like that> at the end,
>> jacob
>> > >> applebaum asks about it and they advise him to use longer keys or
>> > elliptic
>> > >> curves crypto.
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> tor-talk mailing list
>> > >> tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
>> > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>> > >>
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >tor-talk mailing list
>> > >tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > tor-talk mailing list
>> > tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> tor-talk mailing list
>> tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>
>
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk