From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: pitz@onetouch.com
Message Hash: 506a6466c0b0a0c32751336188377b926f1573241558f01bcbc307ad4f71ce9e
Message ID: <199601162359.SAA02856@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <9601162346.AA22192@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-17 14:33:07 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:33:07 +0800
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:33:07 +0800
To: pitz@onetouch.com
Subject: Re: pgp broken?
In-Reply-To: <9601162346.AA22192@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199601162359.SAA02856@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
"greg pitz" writes:
> In speaking with an associate, he mentioned in passing that PGP had
> been broken a few weeks ago in San Diego by the DoD using a Cray.
> All questioning about said subject was ended immediately as he felt
> that he might have said too much how it was. Was PGP "broken"?
How could you break "PGP" per se using lots of computer power? Its an
encryption system, not a particular key. What would the Cray have been
doing? Running an AI program trying to come up with new factoring
algorithms?
Now, I could believe that someone could break PGP -- perhaps by
finding some weakness in the implementation of RSA, or the RNG, or
maybe even a weakness in RSA itself. However, I have a great deal of
trouble believing that PGP *itself* was broken "using a Cray". If it
is going to be broken, it will be done using a few pounds of neurons
fed by a blood supply (at least until real AIs are out there
publishing math papers).
> Could this be part of the reason the charges were dropped against
> Phil as well?
I doubt it. The statute of limitations was going to expire soon in any
case.
Perry
Return to January 1996
Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”