mSparks

112 bit effective strength has been the required MINIMUM for FIPS/NIST since 2014. ->and that is just to protect you from NON nation state actors.

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublic...

Plus, we KNOW they were routinely breaking 64bit effective strength since the 90s, 30 years on we need a lot lot more than twice the strength, even against half decent hackers - but changing the backbone is considered "too expensive".

So that isn't ME saying the US doesn't have anything valuable enough to protect. Its the US standards agencies.

All the public sources I've found say it is secure.

Except for the ones recommending 512bit EC's

Perhaps you can find the parameters for a 512bit,non NIST EC and we can both be happy?

Otherwise I'll stick with 8000 and 15424 RSA thnx.

->similar difficulty to breaking NIST P-256

which takes our comp sci lab 35 seconds on a cluster of 8 machines.

so still no.

total nonsense.

25519 is an asymetric key using eliptic curves

even if that is true. its still not enough to protect anything of value.

Well. OP says ->Generate your new sexy Ed25519 key

I too, say, No f'ing thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve25519 In cryptography, Curve25519 is an elliptic curve offering 128 bits of security - The curve is birationally equivalent to Ed25519, a Twisted Edwards curve.

Ecrypt II - the EU project into encryption security says: https://www.keylength.com/en/3/

That gives you

Very short-term protection against small organizations Should not be used for confidentiality in new systems

and is equivelent to an 816bit RSA key

So how is this new key "Sexy" in any way.

not true - the public blockchain means that cracking the encryption is only a very small part of such problem. You also need to convince all the other peers that you cracked it first

Because Bitcoin IS cracking encryption - bitcoins are assigned by doing exactly that.

In Bitcoin, a private key is usually a 256-bit number (giving a key length of at least 512 bits)

On the other hand, I'm sure all the MTgox customers will be happy with your assertion that their $450 million of missing/stolen funds allegedly stolen straight out of the MtGox hot wallet over time, beginning in late 2011. are actually still safe. Not sure they'll agree however.

->You were insinuating that basically there's no safe way to establish secrets (using some form of ecdh). While there absolutely is.

I'm complaining there is no STANDARD & SECURE way to establish secrets (unlike say AES or Rabbit). That's not quite the same thing. Nearly everything has been designed to fail from the very beginning. Or are you saying you still trust "the experts" after everything that's happened?

Curve 25519 does not meet the ECRYPT recommendations of a min keylength of 512bits for Ellyptic Curves https://www.keylength.com/en/3/ Curve 25519 at 128bit provides:Very short-term protection against small organizations Should not be used for confidentiality in new systems

->OpenSSL since version 1.1.0

Probably the very worst example of an implementation you could give. OpenSSL version 1.1.0... Really????

Nice. I've found openpgp to be fit for purpose, there's even a js version for apps now: https://openpgpjs.org/

But still run into US import/export control problems with decent encryption. IMHO we can never have a standard as long as the US is involved in creating the standard, with obviously something never standing a chance of becoming a standard without the US being involved.

Confused.. Safecurves exists because all the standard curves appear to be backdoored. Curve25519 is not a standard curve. How is this FUD?

Curve25519 was first released by Daniel J. Bernstein in 2005,[7] but interest increased considerably after 2013 when it was discovered that the NSA had implemented a backdoor into Dual EC DRBG. While not directly related,[8] suspicious aspects of the NIST's P curve constants[9] led to concerns[10] that the NSA had chosen values that gave them an advantage in factoring[11] public keys.[12]

im mobile and traveling. tried to find my links to research but not in my mobile bookmarks. there is a great page somewhere that lists each curve --- edit you found it:

https://safecurves.cr.yp.to

for reference google (pdfs so cant get links from google mobile):

security dangers of nist curves

and also the reasoning behind the curve chosen for bitcoin.

so edit 2: just, yes. but note the safecurves quote " The core problem is that if you implement the standard curves, chances are you're doing it wrong:"

they are creating a secret key by sending chunks of secret keys (with a mention of a blockchain database - not sure why). Or at least thats what i saw in the code comments.

secret in cryptography has a very special meaning - it refers to the part of the communication process you dont want visible.

encryption is actually mostly a solved problem. There are several good algorithms which are fine with no real problems.

The problems are all in establishing keys. For that there are currently only two choices in use. ecdh. which all the standard curves appear to be backdoored. and rsa, which the russians reckon they have broken.

the dta is just another key sharing scheme. needed. but not one that gives up on all the comsec we have gained so far.

do you not find it dishonest that they claim for example, that the uk government is using it already, but then it turns put it doesn't actually exist beyond a few lines of poc code.

Exactly. its a password limited to 4 digits. And why? That gives you no more than 14 bit security even using a decent system like PBKDF2. Which i see no mention of.

secrets are just that - secret.

The only reason I know of that secrets need sharing is when you are running a key escrow system. Other than that secrets are locked away and used as rarely as possible. Never ever ever transmitted from machine to machine. Thats the key problem in crypto (pun intended). Stuff you transmit cant and wont stay secret.

:( sounds terrible.

I went from eurphoria, to cynicism, to total foil hat in less than an hour.

This sounds incredibly like having multiple points of failure (what happens if one of the DTAs is unavailable?) and no public key cryptography (DTAs creating the secret key).

Wild Guess: Distributed Trust Authority

Its not the code, its the description of how the code should work in the comments.

->Their version of a CA tells both the client and the server the secret to use....

I see a lot of talk and little substance.

"You can have 128bit security with a 4 digit pin"....

No, No you can't. A 4 digit pin is 14 bit security. Any system is only as secure as its weakest link.

It's not a password it's a pin... Dear god, how have we not got past this yet.

While it's good to see an acceptance that iot is fundamentally unworkable on current infrastructure. I am a long way from being convinced this will be it's saviour.

EDIT:Furthermore: https://github.com/apache/incubator-milagro-crypto/blob/mast... /* Client and Server are issued secrets by DTA */

HELL NO.!.!.!.!.!

->ssh daemon doesn't know anything about user password

And neither should it. auth system creates a one time usable "ticket" which is a one way function of the user password and a nonce. The server gives the nonce to the user, who creates his own ticket based on the nonce and his password, gives his ticket to the server, which then checks if the two tickets match, if they do -> authenticated. -> at no point is the actual user password transmitted.

Kerberos extends this further (allows authentication across multiple servers with a single login)

But as far as I know the ticketing system is standard ssh protocol.

Looking at the spec however: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4252#page-10

It appears I am not correct.

might be SSHv2

wow. im not sure i believe this...

there is no need to send the password to the server to authenticate a password in this day and age. i thought ssh was one of the first protocols to not do this.

whats annoying to me is this nonsense while the us employs people to hack into other government systems - including the uk, with impunity. (nsa hacking tools leak).

UK should be giving lauri love a new identity and a fat paycheck. Not pandering to the administration of a country soon to be run by either a crazed sickly war hawk or a full retard that gets all his world news from fox.

only "stupid" if you are opposed to this:

http://techrights.org/2015/01/02/snowden-leaks-on-spying/

Otherwise, dropping peer to peer is the only way to achieve the projects goals.

Its not even a real article. Just some mindless repetition of some braindead cia propoganda against foreign governments being used to promote a new crypto currency called shadowcash.

Yawn.

You sound like you expect something different from reversed Microsoft code.

You seem to have this the wrong way round.

->There comes a time when the software exceeds the capabilities of the hardware, and this is no exception.

This is not "new software on old hardware". OK, It's happened before with other companies. For example Sony saying PS3 games will run on the PS4. But that kind of nonesense is why you don't buy Sony hardware, and their stock price is trundling along at record lows..

My advice is more specific. Anyone holding AMD or Intel stock. Sell now.

nuclear: msr projects and their fusion reactors.

various space based warfare kit (shooting down satellites for example)

that quantum communication satellite.

Im sure there is more.

->They are not already the leader in next-gen technology because it is next-gen, is is in the formative stages. It is the leader in manufacturing, the current generation.

Erm. They are the leaders in everything from manufacturing to supercomputing. What does that exclude?

-> Unfortunately, when you focus on human capital in China, you can't dismiss the fact that China, particularly in the manufacturing sector represents modern day slavery.

Maybe, maybe not. Working for western companies like Apple, sure.

Alibaba

probably somewhere between conditions at Google and Ebay.

The article does not in any way address the fact that China has the very low cost base (massive numbers of highly trained human capital and substantial investment in physical capital and R&D) to guarantee pretty much no other country can compete.

Does it?

Instead, it seems to start from the premise that they are not already the world leaders in "next gen technology".

Which is a total fallacy.

You know lines like:

China’s manufacturing engine has largely stalled

and

Even though China is graduating far more than 1 million engineers every year, the quality of their education is so poor that they are not employable in technical professions.

->utter BS. For a start, their "top 10%" is greater than the total number of US graduates. And their "Bottom 10%" is still more employable in a technical profession than an average US graduate.

is this a cause and effect thing you are struggling with?

didn't they teach you in school the effect (lower growth) has to come after the cause (raising the reserve ratio)?

Or is it just that because US policy has had all policy levers thrown on full speed and they still can't manage an inch of growth that you don't believe in them?

If that is the case, newsflash, that is because the workforce population isn't growing and the education system is shit.

->If government loans were ineligible, most of these institutions would close over night instead of trying to continue with poor friendly community college rates.

Isn't that true of any education system based on tuition fees?

So I found http://www.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/myths-for-pr...

says: Relatively few recent high school grads attending school full time flock to the halls of for-profit schools. These schools typically cater to nontraditional students, including older students with full-time jobs, parents, military veterans, at-risk students and those who need flexible class scheduling.

So is this really about "fixing" schooling, or just "fixing spending on people who don't deserve an education".

Feels much more like the later than the former.

Not sure what you mean by "out of date" in 2011 they launched a policy of reducing growth by raising the reserve ratio massively, they are targeting "high single digit growth".

That growth is all mostly coming from the urbanisation policy. from 98% of the population living and working in the paddy fields a few decades ago to their target of 90% living in modern super cities.

They can literally double their output from now simply by spreading technology from the early 1900s, rather than pure manual labor. But they are going straight for "next-generation manufacturing".

"Energy oversupply", "city oversupply"... Those would be those "flawed assumptions" I was talking about. Its only "oversupply" if you think it impossible they get from the 56% urbanisation rate they are currently at, to somewhere near the 95% urbanisation rate of countries like the USA. Which is the current policy.

And pretty much anything is much much more productive than picking rice from a paddy field by hand, which is the current working day of 46% of the Chinese population - more than 600 million people - or twice the population of the US.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/publication/urban-...

By 2030, up to 70% of the Chinese population - some one billion - will be living in cities.

I'm not sure what you're basing your projections on, but China's growth rate has been heading down for the past decade. They are currently at half of their max GDP growth rate.

lower growth last years was policy -prevent "overheating". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/chinas-overh...

now it isnt

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/cash-reserve-ratio

still have something like 20 or 30 years left before they reach their urbanisation goals. And things dont stop there.