[5631] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Thu Sep 16 18:42:38 1999
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, farber@cis.upenn.edu, cryptography@c2.net,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:31:03 -0400
Message-Id: <19990916223108.418A341F16@SIGABA.research.att.com>
In message <19990916211526.UUWX17922@alaptop.hotwired.com>, Declan McCullagh wr
ites:
> What I found most interesting was what Attorney General Reno said about the
> government's cryptanalysis abilities. When asked if she can break strong,
> >64 bit equivalent crypto, she said, "We have carefully looked at this and
> think it's possible," and declined to add details.
>
> DoD's Hamre said that there would be a big chunk assigned to cryptanalysis
> R&D in DoD's requested FY2001 budget but added "some of the parts you may
> be interested [in] I can't discuss." (I wouldn't necessarily read much into
> this. It could simply be a face-saving move.)
This isn't at all improbable -- just do the math.
Deep Crack cost $250,000; it works against a 56-bit cipher. Multiply that
by 256 and you get $64,000,000 -- hardly a preposterous increase in NSA's
budget. Sure, they want faster results; they'll also have economies of
scale, processors faster than 40 Mhz, etc.
