This is really a semantics question, but normally, when anybody generates a 64-bit, 128-bit, etc number, is there any minimum to it? I mean, encrypting with, like, 12 or something doesn't really do what it should.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-02 22:48
I might be able to help you or I might have no idea what you're talking about, if you rephrase that I'll see what I can do.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-02 22:58
You need to specify the bit size of the number first using the given byte size identifier such as short clit or long clit
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-02 23:04
Ohh I'm not really sure about that one, sorry.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-03 3:14
>>1 I mean, encrypting with, like, 12 or something doesn't really do what it should.
Why not?
It may be more vulnerable to bruteforcing if you're bruteforcing by starting at 0 and going up, but saying that keys should be sufficiently high numbers just encourages bruteforcers to start looking higher.
12 is a perfectly valid key.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-03 20:39
Use 1 digit passwords, that way password crackers skip over them if they start at 2 digits or more
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-04 13:22
>>1
Want to take a wild guess how likely it is to get that low a number when randomly generating a 128-bit key?
>>7
Exactly as likely as any other arbitrary interval of numbers of the same size, assuming you have a good PRNG. Of course, there's a lot of known weak keys for most common encryption schemes, which often include ones with lots of consecutive digits or highly regular subsequences of bits. Very small numbers have lots of leading 0's, so won't be used in encryption schemes where that creates a weak key.