Re: [tor-talk] NSA supercomputer

[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 <javascript:;>>
> 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 <javascript:;>>
> 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:;> <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:;> <javascript:;>
> > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > >>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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 <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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