3 ms·

even if that is true. its still not enough to protect anything of value.

by mSparks 10y ago

pfg 10y ago
That's not what your own source says about 128-bit symmetric keys: > Long-term protection > Generic application-independent recommendation, protection from 2016 to 2040
- mSparks 10y ago
  total nonsense. 25519 is an asymetric key using eliptic curves
  - pfg 10y ago
    As both rockdoe and hannob have mentioned, ed25519 provides the same attack resistance as a 128-bit symmetric cipher. This is even mentioned in the original DJB ed25519 paper: > High security level. This system has a 2^128 security target; breaking it has similar difficulty to breaking NIST P-256, RSA with ≈ 3000-bit keys, strong 128-bit block ciphers, etc. (The same techniques would also produce speed improvements at other security levels.) The best attacks known actually cost more than 2^140 bit operations on average, and degrade quadratically in success probability as the number of bit operations drops.
    - mSparks 10y ago
      ->similar difficulty to breaking NIST P-256 which takes our comp sci lab 35 seconds on a cluster of 8 machines. so still no.
      - pfg 10y ago
        If that's possible, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty finding a public source to cite that states the same.
        mSparks 10y ago
        All the public sources I've found say it is secure. Except for the ones recommending 512bit EC's Perhaps you can find the parameters for a 512bit,non NIST EC and we can both be happy? Otherwise I'll stick with 8000 and 15424 RSA thnx.
svenfaw 10y ago
Absolutely incorrect. Anything above 90-100 bits of effective (symmetric) strength is currently more than enough, even against nation state actors.
- mSparks 10y ago
  112 bit effective strength has been the required MINIMUM for FIPS/NIST since 2014. ->and that is just to protect you from NON nation state actors. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-131a.pdf http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublic... Plus, we KNOW they were routinely breaking 64bit effective strength since the 90s, 30 years on we need a lot lot more than twice the strength, even against half decent hackers - but changing the backbone is considered "too expensive". So that isn't ME saying the US doesn't have anything valuable enough to protect. Its the US standards agencies.
  - willthames 10y ago
    128 bits isn't twice as strong as 64 bits. 65 bits is twice as strong as 64 bits. 2^64 ~= 10^19 - or 10 million million million times stronger.
    - mSparks 10y ago
      technically its around ln(n)ln(ln(n)) stronger "best case" thats a lot closer to 2 than 10 million million million whoever taught you integer factorisation and the dlp are order c^n was either lying to you or had been lied to.

even if that is true. its still not enough to protect anything of value.

by mSparks 10y ago

even if that is true. its still not enough to protect anything of value.

pfg 10y ago

That's not what your own source says about 128-bit symmetric keys: > Long-term protection > Generic application-independent recommendation, protection from 2016 to 2040

mSparks 10y ago
total nonsense. 25519 is an asymetric key using eliptic curves
- pfg 10y ago
  As both rockdoe and hannob have mentioned, ed25519 provides the same attack resistance as a 128-bit symmetric cipher. This is even mentioned in the original DJB ed25519 paper: > High security level. This system has a 2^128 security target; breaking it has similar difficulty to breaking NIST P-256, RSA with ≈ 3000-bit keys, strong 128-bit block ciphers, etc. (The same techniques would also produce speed improvements at other security levels.) The best attacks known actually cost more than 2^140 bit operations on average, and degrade quadratically in success probability as the number of bit operations drops.
  - mSparks 10y ago
    ->similar difficulty to breaking NIST P-256 which takes our comp sci lab 35 seconds on a cluster of 8 machines. so still no.
    - pfg 10y ago
      If that's possible, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty finding a public source to cite that states the same.
      - mSparks 10y ago
        All the public sources I've found say it is secure. Except for the ones recommending 512bit EC's Perhaps you can find the parameters for a 512bit,non NIST EC and we can both be happy? Otherwise I'll stick with 8000 and 15424 RSA thnx.

svenfaw 10y ago

Absolutely incorrect. Anything above 90-100 bits of effective (symmetric) strength is currently more than enough, even against nation state actors.

mSparks 10y ago
112 bit effective strength has been the required MINIMUM for FIPS/NIST since 2014. ->and that is just to protect you from NON nation state actors. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-131a.pdf http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublic... Plus, we KNOW they were routinely breaking 64bit effective strength since the 90s, 30 years on we need a lot lot more than twice the strength, even against half decent hackers - but changing the backbone is considered "too expensive". So that isn't ME saying the US doesn't have anything valuable enough to protect. Its the US standards agencies.
- willthames 10y ago
  128 bits isn't twice as strong as 64 bits. 65 bits is twice as strong as 64 bits. 2^64 ~= 10^19 - or 10 million million million times stronger.
  - mSparks 10y ago
    technically its around ln(n)ln(ln(n)) stronger "best case" thats a lot closer to 2 than 10 million million million whoever taught you integer factorisation and the dlp are order c^n was either lying to you or had been lied to.