Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

It will be significantly less. I would just set up a recurrence relation for this like so: A(n) = A(n-1) - C * 2 ^ (N-1) and A(0) = size of keyspace, say 62^12 lets set C = 3.0*10^12 for hashes computed the first year and assume computing power doubles every year. Plugging this into wolfram alpha yields this function solution for the recurrence relation: ...


2

I could do the math given your assumptions, but the result would have little practical relevance, because your assumptions are not valid and your problem statement is missing some important context. Doing the math here without questioning the assumption would be like one of those physics jokes that begins "assume a spherical cow..." For example, it is not ...


1

It's possible that at some point in the future we might have a dedicated volatile memory designed for storing encryption keys, much like we use TPMs for long-term storage of keys. Perhaps a portion of the TPM could be memory mapped by the kernel and used for ephemeral key storage. This might even give rise to devices designed to resist cold boot attacks, ...


1

Assuming computing power of the attacker can be expressed exponentially over time: p = a·ebt where t is time (t = 0 when the attacker starts trying passwords), a and b are two constants, and p is a measure of power expressed in "password tries per time unit", then the size of the space of passwords explored by the attacker over time period T is: Moore's ...


1

If your original construction gives you the security properties you want, then simply replacing Alice_PU[KS] with Bob_PU[KS] should do the job. Think of the database as a communication channel to your future self. Future Bob should still have his keypair, so can both decrypt the session key and verify the signature.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible