Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Bcrypt / Salts

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 12:38

Are they more secure than sha2048?
Would ANDRU be safe?

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 12:50

Sorry, I have an algorithm that cracks bcrypt in O(1).

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 13:24

ANDRU on bath salts? Could end badly.

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 13:29

>>2
So what would you advise?
Is there an existing algorithm that is impossible to decipher yet?

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 14:06

>>4
if it's imposible to ``decipher'' (sic) why would you want to use it in the first place?
you are out of your mind, pal

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 14:07

>>4
Not without specialized hardware; I recommend a write-only memory chip.

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 18:06

>>6
there could still be side channel attacks

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 18:34

What I meant to say: What algoithm should I use to encrypt data that wouldn't be easily deciphered by the nsa

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 19:07

>>8
Any of the NIST finalists will do equally fine because the NSA has a backdoor on your computer anyway so they can just get the key whenever.

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-10 20:58

Ok thanks

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 5:13

>>8

Ideally if you know who you gonna send the data and can meet him in person, you can use one time pod encryption.

Give him a staple of labeled cd's with random data, keep yourself a copy of every cd. Choose one cd, read the label, xor the data with the cd, destroy the cd and send the encrypted data over with the label. He chooses the right cd by reading the label from the email and compare it to the label of the cd, decrypt the data with xor and destroys the cd.

If you run out of cd's, you can meet again.

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 5:19

>>11

If you are a smart boy, you create a staple of equally labeled cd's after you encrypted the data. These you created by xor a my little pony episode with the encrypted data. This will give you a plausible argument about sending your data so heavily encrypted.

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 5:31

>>1,4
AES

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 9:00

>>13
Sorry, I can break AES in O(1).

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 9:07

>>14
[citacion needed]

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 9:37

>>15
The amount of time it takes me to test all 2256 possible keys is constant. Therefore, breaking any symmetric cipher with key size less than 256 bits takes me O(1).

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 10:10

>>16
Oh I see, so if you do not change your keys at time intervals, and change cyphers every interval, then you can solve a key in one try. Because that is SO the AES standard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard#Description_of_the_cipher

Name: Anonymous 2013-07-12 11:20

>>17
AES is a variant of Rijndael which has a fixed block size of 128 bits, and a key size of 128, 192, or 256 bits.
how about you actually read what you're linking to?

solve a key in one try.
that's not what I said. I said that I can break any 256-bit cipher in constant time.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List