On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Chris Walters wrote: > | This is the point where I start to ask for a citation and stop > | listening to theoretical possibilities and things that might > | possibly could be. Unless of course the exact meaning of phrases > | like "three hundred thousand million years" has a different meaning > | in your universe than it does in mine. > > Whom are you asking for a citation from?
I'm asking you to back up your totally unsubstantiated assertions that the NSA et al can rapidly crack decent cryptography > For which particular facts? Pick any one you like from your contribution to this thread. My favourite would be this one: "A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think." Now that's a pretty definite statement you made there. So, how quickly do you think I think they can do it? And how quickly can they actually do it? > Do you really doubt that the US NSA has a *lot* of supercomputers? Not at all, in fact I would hazard an educated guess that the NSA is the largest consumer of supercomputers in the world, and also that they are very reluctant to advertise the fact. I doubt any of their machines appear on the Top500 list. I say this as a natural deduction from knowing what they are mandated to do and how they would realistically go about doing it. > Do you really doubt that they have experts in mathematics, > cryptology, cryptanalysis, and cryptography experts on staff? Not at all, I would be stupid indeed to doubt that. As evidence, one only has to look at the vast amount of technical literature the NSA has published on the subject. > Or > perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Don't get smart with me, jackass. Everyone here who knows a bit about cryptography knows that give enough time and resources any key can be cracked. I asked you to do a perfectly reasonable thing. You are asserting that the NSA can crack keys quickly, much quicker than the average geek thinks they can do it, but you provide no evidence of this other than your own assertion of it. You didn't even give any evidence of why I should consider you a credible and knowledgeable person in the field. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence and all that. I see 4 scenarios here: 1. You are perfectly correct and can back it up. In which case I'd like to read the evidence. 2. You are perfectly correct and have the evidence but cannot show it to me due to national security or NDA. That's fine, but do say so. 3. You are presenting your knowledgeable hunch/gut feel/opinion/hearsay evidence as fact. that's also fine, but do say so. 4. You are simply making stuff up in varying degrees. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
