pbsd

85 ms·

721.
by pbsd 14y ago
Impressive computation, but not much new here. The problem solved was a discrete logarithm over the finite field GF(3^(97*6)), which is known to be "easy" due to the low complexity of the function field sieve, asymptotically similar to the
722.
by pbsd 14y ago
You are correct, I shouldn't have tried to argue poor readership, that's just sloppy.
723.
by pbsd 14y ago
"Never use a hash function for message authentication" is such a simplistic view. The author takes a common hash function design (Merkle-Damgard), and somehow extrapolates that hash functions should be simply ruled out for authentication. F
724.
by pbsd 14y ago
If you're worried about quantum computers when thinking some website's security, you're either doing it wrong, or living in the future. Post-quantum is cool alright, but it's not really a thing that implementers need to worry about.
725.
by pbsd 14y ago
Not that insane. Everyone knew it could be done (since the 60s), and the guy was already insanely rich, so the means were available. All that was lacking was the will to do it. Cute, but as a feel-good human interesting TV story, not life o
726.
by pbsd 14y ago
Not that this detracts at all from your point, but Erlang is 25 years old, and has been publicly available for 14. So it is relatively new compared to most of the other ones in current use.
727.
by pbsd 15y ago
The first question is an open one. Not even theoretical cryptography people understand collision resistance very well. From a practical standpoint, though, we know that it can be pulled off reasonably fast; SHA-256 is still standing, for ex
728.
by pbsd 15y ago
Secure hashes need to be fast. If you look at the ongoing SHA-3 competition, you will see an enormous focus on speed, on both software and hardware. Why do they need to be fast? They're used everywhere . Opening up notepad.exe, you'll ve
729.
by pbsd 15y ago
Yes and no. On modern Intel CPUs, 32-bit bswap is 1 uop, but 64-bit bswap is 2. On AMD it seems to always be just 1 uop.
730.
by pbsd 15y ago
I don't understand what it is about Palatino that people find attractive; it looks ugly as shit to me. I've cycled through most of the fonts available in LaTeX (and beyond, with XeTeX), and always end up reverting back to lmodern. I guess i
731.
by pbsd 15y ago
> And, seriously, a Michael Scott protocol? Can you elaborate?
732.
by pbsd 15y ago
It's unfair to compare Skein (designed by a 8 people team, most of which more active in the field than Bruce), to CubeHash, solely designed by Dan.
733.
by pbsd 15y ago
The two models are equivalent, in fact: http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/246 This of course says nothing about how to go about building an actual cipher/hash that withstands all kinds of cryptanalysis. Edit: apparently not so clear, I'm told:
734.
by pbsd 15y ago
You're right, I do recall that passage. Apologies if I sounded patronizing. I tried to be careful with the wording, precisely to avoid making a common-sense statement into a controversy. Yes, block ciphers are more well-studied (2012-70s &#
735.
by pbsd 15y ago
I see you've adopted Moxie's argument, block ciphers against hashes. Very well. The hard part of designing a good hash function is achieving collision-resistance; one-wayness is easy. In this context, we don't really care about collision-re
736.
by pbsd 15y ago
To be honest, I don't see why anyone would use bcrypt over PBKDF2, if the security of the primitives is of any serious concern. I am new here on HN, so I'm not aware of your arguments on why bcrypt is better than PBKDF2. As for the "brandin
737.
by pbsd 15y ago
You're mixing up the number of bits in the RSA modulus n, and the number of bits in the exponent e. Integer modular multiplication is O(n^2)[1]. Binary exponentiation, the most common of algorithms, requires O(e) modular multiplications. It
738.
by pbsd 15y ago
This has a lot to do with the time the article was written. 2008 was a time where ring0 had gone out of fashion (SoftIce dead, nothing usable to replace it), and virtual machines weren't quite that common yet for debugging. Today you'll fin
739.
by pbsd 15y ago
I could swear I had read a similar rant of yours somewhere before, but could not find it. Anyway, I do not disagree with you. What I was trying to convey was not so much the quality of current intrinsic code, but the progress that has been
740.
by pbsd 15y ago
Well, I give scheduling a free pass because modern processors will reorder and rename the whole thing anyway, provided the instructions are not too badly chosen. Beating the compiler usually has more to do with having more information. Say,
741.
by pbsd 15y ago
In terms of performance, it's actively worse than a compiler's output. Using the x87 FPU makes no sense in this day and age, considering this is Intel 64 assembly. GPUs (and plain CPU SIMD) would help very much yes. Any serious NN implement
742.
by pbsd 15y ago
Quickest way (without multiplication) is divide and conquer, just like the usual bit popcount: static inline int f(const u64 m) { const u64 ones = 0x0101010101010101ULL; const u64 b64 = m & ones; const u32 b32 = b64 +
743.
by pbsd 15y ago
Reddit was already cracking down on child pornography --- illegal content was actively searched and reported to the authrities already. What's happening here has nothing to do with CP (in the legal sense), but with public perception. It's a
744.
by pbsd 15y ago
Yes, let us ignore the conclusions of the individuals that thought long and hard about the issue, and just go with what "common sense" (aka "the gut") tells us. Allowing "theft" be defined as depriving someone of something turns pretty much
745.
by pbsd 15y ago
All your examples look strange only if you're living in a wealthy place. I can recall having to do all these without having to set foot on a plane, except one: whenever I go somewhere, I bother to learn at least a little of the local langua
746.
by pbsd 15y ago
"Think before you speak" is always good advice. The "confidence of the mind" referred above does not mean that you should shit out everything that pops in your head.
747.
by pbsd 15y ago
Well, directly is a bit of a stretch. It's probably more fair to say they're directly based off the Powers-Lehmer-Morrison-Brilhart (also Kraitchik, for the discrete log) method, which introduced the concept of factor bases and combining re
748.
by pbsd 15y ago
In the particular case of python, I see none of the problems you mention. In pretty much all Linux distros, it already comes installed and ready to use (i.e., just execute it, no need to know paths or anything). The same happens on Windows,
749.
by pbsd 15y ago
It's slightly better documented these days, ever since cuobjdump is bundled with the compiler tools. It allows SASS output, which is supposed to be the native machine code of the Fermis.
750.
by pbsd 15y ago
It's not just important that they pick up things fast. If you ask to do some task in Python, that would be done much faster in (say) C#, they should be able to point this out, instead of just following the recipe you gave them. Good judgmen

More ›