Comments on: No Hacking Matter http://steelwhitetable.org/2007/02/12/no-hacking-matter/ History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:10:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Pender http://steelwhitetable.org/2007/02/12/no-hacking-matter/#comment-78287 Pender Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:03:38 +0000 http://steelwhitetable.org/blog/2007/02/12/no-hacking-matter/#comment-78287 The time to hack is dependant on processing power, not by bandwidth. Based on a public key and the resulting cypher in order to get the message out of if you have to try all combinations of characters, and when your processed cypher matches the original processed cypher you have the message. To get that processed cypher is what takes a long, long time to get. The more characters then the exponentially longer it takes to get the message because there's exponentially more combinations to guess (like if you compare winning 6/49 to super 7, it's exponentially easier to win the 6/49, but it still ain't easy). If you can check 500 different combinations in a second on a normal computer, and say it takes 10 minutes to decrypt (at a total 300000 "guesses") to get to the result. If you could check 64000 every second it would take 4.7 seconds to get the result. Of course, mr. jody will tell me I'm wrong about the encryption theory. My assumptions are obviously ludicrus (500 checks a second is probably way low). I'm just trying to show scale. It brings the "omg 512bit encryption is totally unhackable!!" down to "sure, I'll own all your banking information by tomorrow". The time to hack is dependant on processing power, not by bandwidth. Based on a public key and the resulting cypher in order to get the message out of if you have to try all combinations of characters, and when your processed cypher matches the original processed cypher you have the message. To get that processed cypher is what takes a long, long time to get. The more characters then the exponentially longer it takes to get the message because there’s exponentially more combinations to guess (like if you compare winning 6/49 to super 7, it’s exponentially easier to win the 6/49, but it still ain’t easy).

If you can check 500 different combinations in a second on a normal computer, and say it takes 10 minutes to decrypt (at a total 300000 “guesses”) to get to the result. If you could check 64000 every second it would take 4.7 seconds to get the result.

Of course, mr. jody will tell me I’m wrong about the encryption theory. My assumptions are obviously ludicrus (500 checks a second is probably way low). I’m just trying to show scale. It brings the “omg 512bit encryption is totally unhackable!!” down to “sure, I’ll own all your banking information by tomorrow”.

]]> By: Ashley http://steelwhitetable.org/2007/02/12/no-hacking-matter/#comment-72189 Ashley Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:37:05 +0000 http://steelwhitetable.org/blog/2007/02/12/no-hacking-matter/#comment-72189 I think it's very cool—if it actually works out—but I don't think hacking will get easier in the general case. You could have all the computing power in the world trying to hack any given box and you still have to go through the same connection space. Like defending a narrow doorway, even one guy can hold off all the world's armies pretty well; especially since, in the computer world, that man can close the door at any moment. Speaking of which: <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/" rel="nofollow">300</a>. I think it’s very cool—if it actually works out—but I don’t think hacking will get easier in the general case. You could have all the computing power in the world trying to hack any given box and you still have to go through the same connection space. Like defending a narrow doorway, even one guy can hold off all the world’s armies pretty well; especially since, in the computer world, that man can close the door at any moment. Speaking of which: 300.

]]>