What's the point?

[Quaggoth]

Why would you want to prove that 64 bit encryption is enough? I mean, 128 bit would take forever to crack, but I can't think of any sort of, say, performance issues, or basically any reason NOT to use 128. And Why not 256? What makes people want to prove that 64 is "Good enough". To me, it seems like the same thing as saying that 64 Mb of RAM is "Good enough"

Of course, I could be WAY off on the reson you are cracking, but that's the reason I was told by a borg member.

Anyway, Have a good day.

 

[Adul]

More like to see why it is NOT good enough.

 

[dawks]

Someone once figgured out how long it would take to crack 128bit.. Approximatly 700 Billion years at our current rate in RC-5 64bit... Pretty well impossible.. (I think thats the number he quoted, maybe Im wrong..)

 

[Quaggoth]

soooooo.......

You are trying to crack it to let the governments that only allow 64 bit know that it's not good enough?

Seems to me that's probably EXACTLY the reason they want you to use it.

 

[JHutch]

Well, proving RC5-64 inadequate was the initial reason (and still is to some extent). But more than that, RC5 is the project that proved distributed computing was a viable endeavour. Without RC5, there would be no OGR, no SETI, no Gamma Flux, etc. And since RC5 was the first, those of us who have been in it up to now would REALLY like to see it through to the end. Plus, it provides the best stats of any project and most of us have become addicted to the stats and the competition.

Geeks may not be good at basketball and such, but we still like to trash talk! 🙂

Actually, I think crack racks are my generation's equivalent of my father's generation's roadsters... 😉

JHutch

 

[vss1980]

RC5 now no longer has a point other than to prove the inverse of what they wanted. Ie. 64-bit encryption is good, however, the way in which RC5 works is not the most intelligent way of cracking the code. There are specialised computers that could cycle through keys at an effective rate several times faster than current P3's and K7's.

But in saying that RC5 has no point, neither does Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike or Quake3. People have bought their computers, let them thrash them however they want to.

I doubt Dnet are gonna carry on with RC5 after RC5-64 is done, as it is not proving anything any more other than Dnet's ability to maintain a distributed computing structure. And I think Dnet will probably be looking in some paying jobs in the future, possibly.

 

[Russ]

I crack, therefore I am.

Russ, NCNE

 

[ZapZilla]

In support of vss1980's post: read about the new Public Key Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), formerly known as Rijndael here or here, or even the CipherUnicorn-A encryption scheme.

They are both incomprehensibly more difficult to crack than the RC5 or DES schemes.

The Team AnandTech RC5 effort, as well as the other TA distributed efforts, is about competition and showing the world that we of Team AnandTech are the best distributed team on the planet.

The many, the proud -- Team AnandTech!

 

[Quaggoth]

vss - I didn't say RC5 HAS no point, just that I didn't see it. At least in Counter Strike (Kaizen), A person can practice tactical thinking skills. I wasn't ripping at all, just trying to get a better picture of the reason why people make their PC's run at 100% 24/7 just to prove a point that is already proven.

JHutch - Actually, I think crack racks are my generation's equivalent of my father's generation's roadsters... 🙂

I agree somewhat, but I look at my PC itself about like I look at my 72 Mach1.
I see your point though.

 

[vss1980]

Dont worry Quaggoth, I know the point of UT, CS, and Q3.

Just trying to get across the fact that what flicks one person's switch doesn't necessarily work for someone else.