Encrypting files

[unretired]

Quote from DirkDigler:

There's nothing wrong with PGP. And no need to wait for junior to post a link. You can get it here if you'd really like to mess with it.

I still prefer Truecrypt...

Yeah ... me too ... features and simplicity ... with a few layers make it easy, fast reliable and safe.
Not as safe as PGP or numbers of other high power programs ... but a solid tool to a security system and plan.

Oh ... sorry Dirk ... hope my roasts of "junior" are not too offensive.

Likely the bluffster will be on ignore as there is no content of value coming from him.

 

[kana]

Quote from unretired:

Yeah ... me too ... features and simplicity ... with a few layers make it easy, fast reliable and safe.
Not as safe as PGP or numbers of other high power programs ... but a solid tool to a security system and plan.

You prefer TrueCrypt with such low encryption and you call it reliable.

You are not worthy of human skin.

 

[unretired]

Quote from kana:

You really are a joke aren't you.

You are calling PGP a joke and you use TrueCrypt with 256-512 bit encryption.

You ARE BIGGER JOKE THAN Kaiser Wilhelm second

No No ... PGP is great ... I'm calling you a joke.


You see ... I have gone round and round over these issues over a
four year period of extensive research and testing. (This some number of years ago.)

I really do want a far superior system ... but not at the compromise of ease of use.

I have what will stop what I need stopped.
Any big agencies want in ... they will get though you, PGP, me and anything they want ...
except a multi-person protocol where one link is securely shut off from access.

So the argument from me isn't whether PGP or many variations aren't superior ... that isn't debatable ...
it is what works and is very tough to break.

And whether or not you have been civil and reasonable and informative
in your communications.

You were rude and called on your BS.

You got a direct response to deal with that.

Chill and get respect. Be disrespectful and get challenged.
Your choice. I for one am done unless you provide substance.

 

[DirkDigler]

Quote from unretired:
Oh ... sorry Dirk ... hope my roasts of "junior" are not too offensive.

Offensive to me? Don't be silly I enjoyed them. Don't know what motivated me to be so kind in my choice of names...

 

[unretired]

Quote from intradaybill:

You have said nothing new here. If you do not understand this, you are too silly. I think Steve overestimated you. You will never be able to decrypt any file. You just have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

LOL


That was funny ... but it immediately took me to "ass"perger syndrom ...

wherein I was thinking that was when one has gas with substance ...

better known as a "Shart."


Young-uns do that a lot.

 

[polr_trader]

Kana is a funny guy. Even funnier is the reaction he generates by posting drivel. Let's look at some very fun (and very geeky) facts:

1) AES, which is short for Advanced Encryption Standard, was designed by the very best cryptographers in the world and is constantly being analyzed by the very best cryptographers in the world. To date, nobody has found a way of breaking it more quickly than trying every single possible key.

2) If a key is 256 bits long, then there are 2^256 different possible keys. On average, one will have to search half of these keys (2^255) before getting lucky. This is simply impossible with current technology and will remain so for a hundred years even if the growth in computing power stays at its current rate. A device that could check a billion billion (10^18 or quintillion) AES keys per second would require about 3×10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

3) For extra credit, let's examine how much energy a modern computer would require to crack 256-bit encryption. Let's assume we've built a Dyson sphere around our sun to capture 100% of its energy for the rest of its life. Each operation (i.e., possible key) requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions. Even at E=mc^2, one would get only 8.6*10^69 = 2^233 operations out of the Sun. So even if one could build an ungodly massively parallel computer that could break 256-AES in a reasonable time, there wouldn't be enough power in our solar system to operate it.

4) The NSA uses 256-bit AES for their own encryption.

5) TrueCrypt rocks.

ADVICE: Use a good password combined with an image file in TrueCrypt.

 

[unretired]

Quote from stevegee58:

Kana is sufficiently uncivil that I'm considering putting him on ignore.
But I'll give him 2.5-3 days to decrypt my challenge file first.

LOL

 

[stevegee58]

Dammit. Nothing like getting trolled on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[unretired]

Quote from polr_trader:

Kana is a funny guy. Even funnier is the reaction he generates by posting drivel. Let's look at some very fun (and very geeky) facts:

1) AES, which is short for Advanced Encryption Standard, was designed by the very best cryptographers in the world and is constantly being analyzed by the very best cryptographers in the world. To date, nobody has found a way of breaking it more quickly than trying every single possible key.

2) If a key is 256 bits long, then there are 2^256 different possible keys. On average, one will have to search half of these keys (2^255) before getting lucky. This is simply impossible with current technology and will remain so for a hundred years even if the growth in computing power stays at its current rate. A device that could check a billion billion (10^18 or quintillion) AES keys per second would require about 3×10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

3) For extra credit, let's examine how much energy a modern computer would require to crack 256-bit encryption. Let's assume we've built a Dyson sphere around our sun to capture 100% of its energy for the rest of its life. Each operation (i.e., possible key) requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions. Even at E=mc^2, one would get only 8.6*10^69 = 2^233 operations out of the Sun. So even if one could build an ungodly massively parallel computer that could break 256-AES in a reasonable time, there wouldn't be enough power in our solar system to operate it.

4) The NSA uses 256-bit AES for their own encryption.

5) TrueCrypt rocks.

ADVICE: Use a good password combined with an image file in TrueCrypt.

+5

 

[unretired]

Quote from polr_trader:

Kana is a funny guy. Even funnier is the reaction he generates by posting drivel. Let's look at some very fun (and very geeky) facts:

1) AES, which is short for Advanced Encryption Standard, was designed by the very best cryptographers in the world and is constantly being analyzed by the very best cryptographers in the world. To date, nobody has found a way of breaking it more quickly than trying every single possible key.

2) If a key is 256 bits long, then there are 2^256 different possible keys. On average, one will have to search half of these keys (2^255) before getting lucky. This is simply impossible with current technology and will remain so for a hundred years even if the growth in computing power stays at its current rate. A device that could check a billion billion (10^18 or quintillion) AES keys per second would require about 3×10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

3) For extra credit, let's examine how much energy a modern computer would require to crack 256-bit encryption. Let's assume we've built a Dyson sphere around our sun to capture 100% of its energy for the rest of its life. Each operation (i.e., possible key) requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions. Even at E=mc^2, one would get only 8.6*10^69 = 2^233 operations out of the Sun. So even if one could build an ungodly massively parallel computer that could break 256-AES in a reasonable time, there wouldn't be enough power in our solar system to operate it.

4) The NSA uses 256-bit AES for their own encryption.

5) TrueCrypt rocks.

ADVICE: Use a good password combined with an image file in TrueCrypt.

I really appreciate your post. I dig into research ... then when I
have a conclusion ... I forget all the data and keep what I need.

I remember that what I had set up would take over 1000 Years to break
[Now I know it is impossible] ... with your post ... I am refreshed.

Thanks for the intelligent post. I mean it.