4 ms·
I didn't downvote you, but ultimately either someone else can get in or they can't, the fact that keys have varying sizes is tangential to this issue since the
by thatcat 9y ago
I didn't downvote you, but ultimately either someone else can get in or they can't, the fact that keys have varying sizes is tangential to this issue since the size chosen only needs to be one that is sufficient. The fact that I don't know what that value is doesn't change the fact that the outcomes are binary (secure|insecure).
- ketzu 9y agoYour initial assumption seems to be wrong. In cryptography there is one information theoretical secure scheme: The one time pad. But even that relies on circumstances to keep it secure. Without limitations you can not say no one can break it, because obtaining the key material might still be possible. That leaves us with most other schemes. They are computationally secure. This implies that the security of the system depends on the computational power of the attacker. So a system can only be secure for a class of attackers and to a certain extent. If you apply a binary clssification of secure insecure as you proposed it someone can get in", most systems today, if not all, are insecure.
- thatcat 9y ago>most systems today, if not all, are insecure I'd say that's a fair assessment.