[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] NSA supercomputer
> Guys, if you are in trouble with NSA, or other US governmentals agency,
> you're screwed. Physically. Don't mind your electronical com'.
totally agree.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/29/fbi_stingray_mobile_tracking/
--
[]s Fosforo
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Se eu tiver oito horas pra cortar uma arvore, passarei seis afiando meu
machado."
-Abraham Lincoln
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Alexandre Guillioud <
guillioud.alexandre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why not using some exotic scramble of keys/method to encrypt the whole
> message ?
>
> The only way to hide/protect us from something we don't know, is putting a
> mess in protocols. A big mess.
> The point is : How can we unscramble it at the end without revealing the
> secret necessary to scramble it ?
>
> Guys, if you are in trouble with NSA, or other US governmentals agency,
> you're screwed. Physically. Don't mind your electronical com'.
>
>
> 2013/4/5 george torwell <bpmcontrol@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > i wasnt going to, but now i have to...
> > i dont know what tech or knowledge they have.
> > but i imagine that if you angered them, and they wanted your keys, they
> > would come and get them.
> > physically or electronically.
> > <again, only cause nsa whistle-blowers has said so.>
> > so lets not speculate :)
> >
> > i have a lot of faith in the developers, but if you feel that they are
> > missing something, please find a way to contribute that knowledge to the
> > project. that way we all benefit.
> >
> > On 04/04/2013 08:23 AM, Tim wrote:
> > > Those at the root of the NSA have technology that is far faster and
> more
> > vast than you imagine it
> > currently to be. To decrypt keys, It does not take what you might
> > otherwise expect.
> > >
> > > I'm sure one or more of the developers are either in denial or part of
> > the "security" apparatus or both. I would not hold your breath.
> > >
> > > Be well.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, George Torwell <bpmcontrol@xxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:bpmcontrol@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <javascript:;>
> > > > >>
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > > > >>
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >tor-talk mailing list
> > > > >tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > tor-talk mailing list
> > > > tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> > tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tor-talk mailing list
> > > tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRXnX4AAoJELpj163ICqulUkQP/23p+bUuJrtJB2mBf61ONab4
> > WQYntei2nUX+1iegQAmfO8rAQe7A897HCaiOH4paEZCsmTMzsCPdYIQrJli6MCDD
> > l7eHYXJRByw16otUY8GI4d2mZ6AtwefrYVTLDO+PZrjyFcWRHoJ7YRXD2qOsfdQQ
> > 1B9eKDX3Q0laZC99bInLM8zuRX/2GG5gvFBoDTo3AtMMZZWCgxYwRy6MDPyUDjPb
> > 1lJNHthkGriNwpgiewx3SX0USDY4DiwYL1NVFAqisQKsWpoaGyJAUhk3HQ6wvRsx
> > o/pC0TFXJspYvSDMqZvRQke6h8I85JO3uU2hPEonq/cu3RC88M7e6/b3hyG1fbVP
> > /gwF1sCQH+fmcrthxZkVWnA1QDrQ1CTtx6ooJT03POPxSqWQ/7RRKGifqn6cmYSo
> > pVgNTYb+6OzkMQTGNIFukjd+NIideSjTrNziNIdCHK8HqXX9mqh2rXopwTpxSp+1
> > mQtqaxf9U7USyMLd4gPOkBD83d6nuywwBxrUhou3BH73b4uOu6z9xz2OPvRWf5j1
> > 3ykjbjgBnDfjslFilOvAG8dzVCIp5SayXaDAfhe+R9iZBHDgHLxINuqodvQIgNT5
> > trNtOq3szx1KR5+8LIOGS0DhNjuuCqy0JQG+KCLsOc2IeuKYyCbGg28EmNFozde/
> > OS1jfrL6I/LX+i/mdf3a
> > =tydj
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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