cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-10-04 - Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning

Header Data

From: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>
To: “geeman@best.com>
Message Hash: a110cd41f15a2b7cbafc46647f96a5ff3f19765eb937a93fe6f7731a8403f4e7
Message ID: <32550CC5.8F6@tivoli.com>
Reply To: <01BBB163.FC317940@geeman.vip.best.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-04 17:25:37 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:25:37 +0800

Raw message

From: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:25:37 +0800
To: "geeman@best.com>
Subject: Re: DESCrack keyspace partitioning
In-Reply-To: <01BBB163.FC317940@geeman.vip.best.com>
Message-ID: <32550CC5.8F6@tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


geeman@best.com wrote:
>
> (P)RNG's just aren't that likely to produce a key of 010101010.....
> nor 001100110011... etc etc 

Right.  A good CSPRNG is ulikely to produce the pattern 010101010101.
It's also unlikely to produce the pattern 0011001100110011.  Oh, and
it's also unlikely to produce 01100100101001011.  In fact, a good
32-bit CSPRNG has only a 1/2^32 chance of producing any particular
bit pattern.  Of course, another way of saying that is that it's just
as likely to get an "obvious" bit pattern as it is to get any other
one.  You can't just throw away part of the keyspace based on such
bogus reasoning.  (There may be other reasons to throw away part of
the keyspace, of course.)

______c_________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!

Thread