Re: [Full-Disclosure] Time Expiry Alogorithm??

[Andrew Farmer <andfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 Nov 2004, at 12:47, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Georgi Guninski:
> > would prefer to keep my secrets encrypted with algorithm whose 
> > breaking
> > requires *provable* average runtime x^4242 or even x^42 instead of
> > *suspected runtime* 2^(x/4).
>
> It depends on the constant factors you omitted, including those in the
> lower-order terms. 8-)
>
> AES can be broken with O(1) effort, but the constant is so huge that
> it's considered impractical.  IIRC, OpenPGP has an upper bound for key
> length, too, so it too can be broken with O(1) effort as well.
> Obviously, this isn't particularly meaningful.

Especially considering that there aren't enough atoms in the universe to
store all that precalculated data, nor enough energy to do all the
calculations.

(Schneier says that there's enough energy in a supernova to do about 
2^224
operations on a 100% efficient computer. And remember that AES or PGP 
take
multiple operations to calculate results...)

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part