Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered by Browsers

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by tptacek on Sunday September 08, 2013 @10:05AM (#6348717)

No, faster does not mean easier to break. Fast is a problem when brute force attacks are viable, as in with password hashes. There are no viable brute force attacks on 128 bit keys; that's why we use 128 bit keys.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by Achshar on Sunday September 08, 2013 @02:37PM (#6349723)

As a noob in encryption, why is it not possible to guess the 128 bit private key by brute force?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by EliAndrewC on Sunday September 08, 2013 @05:31PM (#6350438)

There are 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 possible 128-bit keys. So if you had a machine that could check a trillion possible keys per second it would take over 10 quintillion years to try all possible 128-bit keys.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by repsilat on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:02AM (#6352075)

The math: https://www.google.com/search?q=2%5E128+%2F+1E12Hz+in+years

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by tptacek on Sunday September 08, 2013 @02:56PM (#6349812)

I could explain this, but in all seriousness, I think the better answer to this question is to urge you to pop open your Perl, Ruby, or Python prompt and work the math out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered b... by crististm on Monday September 09, 2013 @03:49AM (#6352297)

The brute force algorithm is O(2^n)

[ Parent | on HN ]