Matches for from:asciilifeform, 112685 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Thu Jun 16 15:49:34 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> for one thing.
Thu Jun 16 15:49:31 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> browser doesn't give you anything like actual rng.
Thu Jun 16 15:49:16 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> define 'works' and 'know what you're doing'
Thu Jun 16 15:43:46 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> browser crypto is as dumb as 'i think i'll download a new copy of gpg off this unauthenticated link every time i want to use gpg'
Thu Jun 16 15:43:21 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> ^
Thu Jun 16 03:50:43 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> ;;seen mike_c
Wed Jun 15 22:51:12 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> imho djb is the ~one~ fella with genuine talent. which makes it doubly depressing. it is plain as daylight that he ~wants~ to swim against the current, but there is nowhere to swim to.
Wed Jun 15 22:48:28 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> so we get the fluff.
Wed Jun 15 22:48:19 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> (and quite certainly not by declaring 'otp is the only crypto proven to actually work')
Wed Jun 15 22:47:26 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> you can't build a career in mathematics by pushing rsa.
Wed Jun 15 22:47:15 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> but he ~is~ a pro academic.
Wed Jun 15 22:47:12 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> djb is not, afaik, a pawn.
Wed Jun 15 19:23:01 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> (lenstra et al use the runtime complexity of 'best known public attack' as a measure, but this ignores other aspects - such as the considerably greater complexity of ecc, the greater potential for kleptography and diddled constants, etc)
Wed Jun 15 19:17:20 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> 'usg said so' is not a rationale. quite the opposite.
Wed Jun 15 19:16:53 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> NO ONE has publicly put forth anything like an actual rationale for any other view.
Wed Jun 15 19:16:02 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> and that the ONLY thing you can tell from there being k bits in a key is that brute force takes AT MOST k operations.
Wed Jun 15 19:15:17 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> that anyone who tells you 'rsa key of x bits is equivalent to ecc key of y bits' is taking you for an idiot.
Wed Jun 15 19:13:23 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> but why you would give half a shit what 'Fact Sheet NSA Suite B Cryptography' or 'NIST Recommendations' etc. say re crypto keys, is beyond me.
Wed Jun 15 19:12:51 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> which in itself is quite dodgy.
Wed Jun 15 19:12:46 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> punkman: the only even vaguely scientific source for the 'key length equivalence' thing is lenstra's paper