Moderators: phlip, Prelates, Moderators General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin#Sinking wrote:Researchers found a cheese sandwich which exhibited no visible signs of decomposition, and was in fact eaten.
EvanED wrote:be aware that when most people say "regular expression" they really mean "something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular expression"
Sagekilla wrote:Since you're assuming you can do 10^223 passwords, you'll only be able to try 0.04% of the possible passwords. Equivalently, there's 1243.67 times as many passwords as you can check.
naschilling wrote:It should not surprise anyone that 10^226.4 passwords checked 10^6 passwords per second would need 10^220.4 seconds to crack it.
queerismyfavouritecrayon wrote:Someone told me that when I subtracted "(26^160 / 2) - (10^223)", I should have divided them (but coincidentally I got the same result anyway? huh?)
queerismyfavouritecrayon wrote:They also pointed out that if you are using 256-bit encryption, an attacker would just go for the key (1.16*10^77 combinations) rather than the password (26^160 combinations). I guess this could be resolved by using a key with more than 26^160 combinations, but to my knowledge you can't really implement this today -- nor use a password over 64-characters.
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
Actually, with time loop logic, you can obtain any answer in time proportional to the length of the answer (because that's the minimum possible time to read the answer.) You just have to use time loop recursion.Maybe it is possible to crack every (reasonable, e.g. storable on computers) password in polynominal* time if time loop logic works.
*checking a password of some TB size with appropriate encryption algorithms will take some time, too.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
mfb wrote:Seth Lloyd does a bit more than giving a number: He gets a formula to calculate the possible number of operations for all times. It is \#ops \approx \rho \,c^5 t^4 / \hbar. As we already know the value for the current age of 10^10 years, it is easy to scale it up to 10^100 years: \#ops \approx 10^{480}. More than enough for the sms-sized password. The important point here is that with increasing age, we have a larger volume (~t^3) to do calculations in.
mfb wrote:I think you still have to check if it is the correct password - otherwise you cannot determine what to send back in time.
Ok, a trickier version of that would split up the check in several cycles of the same slice in time (or somewhere in the past or the future). But then you need polynomial computing power or polynomial integrated computing time.
And finally, linear is just a special case of polynomial. If it is linear will depend on the algorithm (good: not linear?).
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
a = ""
x = sha512(password)
FOR i = 1 to 4
x = sha512(x + password)
a = a + x
ENDFOR
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
When you're talking about making passwords strong enough to resist someone who can "turn the entire universe into a computer", practicality has already been thrown out the window. Anyone who has the resources to break even a 20-letter password by brute force (let alone 160-letter) will also have access to much easier means of getting whatever information you want to keep secret:queerismyfavouritecrayon wrote:Can anyone help me find a way to practically implement this?
queerismyfavouritecrayon wrote:True Goplat, but if it's relatively easy to implement a standard that is theoretically secured by physical limits, why not do it? Why keep incrementally upgrading encryption strength as Moore's Law goes along?
queerismyfavouritecrayon wrote:True Goplat, but if it's relatively easy to implement a standard that is theoretically secured by physical limits, why not do it? Why keep incrementally upgrading encryption strength as Moore's Law goes along?
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
at some point in my lifetime a 20-character alphanumericsymbolic password may be crackable in about 90 minutes.
lojbrent wrote:at some point in my lifetime a 20-character alphanumericsymbolic password may be crackable in about 90 minutes.
Any clue how long that thing takes now on a standard computer. I was trying to crack a password on a Zip archive once. I had brute force app running about 30 sessions on a machine, one with 2 characters, one with 3, one with 4 and so on. That ran for 6 days I think without a single hit.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
WarDaft wrote:Graphics cards have been in the multi-teraflops range for a while now, so less than a day for sure.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
Dthen wrote: I am a cat.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests