Re: [tor-talk] NSA supercomputer

[Alexandre Guillioud <guillioud.alexandre@xxxxxxxxx>]

One ask triggering another :
How do you do a timing attack ? What are the necessary steps to be
successfull in such a thing ? Where can i find some documented timing
attack scenario ?


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

> My guess is that the Key size is configured right into the node's source
> code.
> If you apply multiple key size accross the network, you're exposed with
> the smallest encryption key of the circuit.
> Except for one thing : if somebody can break one of the circuit's key,
> depending of the node number into the circuit, he can be able to read your
> message. But without a timing attack or an attack on all the circuit's keys
> (destination/from adresses datas are encapsulated one into another), he
> can't know the entry, exit node or target adresses at the same time.
>
> I'm a begginer here, don't take my words for truth ;)
>
>
> Le jeudi 4 avril 2013, Bernard Tyers a écrit :
>
>> 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