3 ms·
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges? More bits don't equal better encryption … In the case of Mega, the claim of 'military-grade encryption' sounds too muc
by chmars 14y ago
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges? More bits don't equal better encryption …
In the case of Mega, the claim of 'military-grade encryption' sounds too much of snake oil as I would want to try the service. Kim Schmitz' past isn't a reason to trust him either.
- STRML 14y agoIn addition, 128-bit encryption is more than safe. In order to brute force it (and you will have to, there are no known vulnerabilities in Rabbit), you need to try up to 3.410^38 keys. The fastest supercomputers in the world would take about 1.0210^18 years to crack 128-bit encryption. See more on this topic (article is about AES, but the basics apply): http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded-internet-design/4372428/How-secure-is-AES-against-brute-force-attacks- http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded-internet-design/43724...
- mentat 14y agoThe basics of a well reviewed cipher do not apply to a random experimental cypher you've chosen instead. Why would you not use AES? It's the best understood cipher in the world right now. "more than safe" just doesn't make sense. Please read all of parent's posts in this thread and do not use their product.
- nwh 14y agoJust because they can't be cracked publicly, doesn't mean that there isn't a way to do it. There could be any number of weaknesses in any algorithm that mean that the computation time can be drastically reduced. WEP is a prime example, which you should probably be familiar with.