Re: Introducing TGP...

["lsi" <stuart () cyberdelix net>]

On 14 Jun 2010 at 9:52, Thor (Hammer Of God) wrote:

> You don't think I considered it?  Really?  You think that I would go  
> through the trouble of designing and implenting a standards based  
> encrytion application without considering that it could be cracked?

The USG put a lot more into DES, but that didn't save it.

> You are incorrect. I certainly considered it. I just know that when  
> brute forcing AES256 becomes feasible, a scan of mynpssport will be  
> the last thing on anyone mind.

As the data is archived, an attacker can come back anytime, once they 
have finished with the interesting stuff... ;)

> How does this differ from SSL, and why do you think I would have to be  
> "live on the wire" to crack it?

It doesn't differ from SSL, which also could be captured and 
eventually cracked.

> If your entire argument is "it can be cracked at some point" then you  
> argue against *any* type of encrytion.

I'm saying security is an onion, and by posting your ciphertext you 
are irreversibly removing several layers of it.  Surely it's better 
to keep the ciphertext inaccessible, this way an attacker has to get 
access to it, in addition to cracking it.

Stu

---
Stuart Udall
stuart at () cyberdelix dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/

--- 
 * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2)

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/