Bitcoin Forum
October 29, 2020, 11:01:10 AM
 News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 Home Help Search Login Register More
 Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [All]
 Author Topic: How long will existing encryption last?  (Read 1812 times)
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 09:54:00 AMMerited by Welsh (2), DdmrDdmr (2), Coolcryptovator (2), JayJuanGee (1)

Asymmetric cryptography.
It is it that makes it possible to generate encryption keys for symmetric cryptography.

Transmission, encryption of information is carried out (in most cases) by symmetric cryptographic systems. Because they are much more reliable, less for a key, less load on computing power and the like. But the main thing is reliability.

But in this reliable system, there is an unreliable element, the most important element, an asymmetric system.

Everyone calmed down. No problems. Everything is reliable. But why then the specialized organizations responsible for the "reliability of cryptography" are looking for something, obviously, they are not happy with something.

Why do recognized authorities of cryptographic science give such ambiguous definitions as "conditionally reliable cryptography".

It is interesting to talk about the known facts of the rejection of some asymmetric systems and the intensified search for new ones.

Mathematicians know that all modern asymmetric cryptography is based on unproven mathematical statements. Simply put, from a scientific point of view, only on hypotheses. On unsubstantiated assumptions. It’s good that we know which ones.

And cryptography on elliptic curves, which is part of blockchain technology (digital signature), has overgrown with obscure facts. On the one hand, we recommend it for domestic use, on the other hand, it is forbidden to use it in serious matters.

There is an opinion of cryptographers that any system with a public and private key will be hacked sooner or later, and then all your secrets will become known. You save them now (they recommend cryptography on elliptic curves!), And then they will open everything. Well, not a fact.

This is just a danger. And it's not about the progress of quantum computing and (the main nuisance) the provision of these services to anyone, for money, over the network.

But it's not that. Brute-force attack is the fate of the monkey. We are all a little monkeys, we are all afraid of a quantum computer and a complete search. This is not the worst, the keys can be increased and generally go into even larger numerical fields.

But the main danger is cryptanalysis. He is developing.
The life of a cryptanalyst is like that of a secret agent. Even his family does not know about his real job.
I wonder why such a conspiracy.

The author is committed to the idea that if such “researchers” of asymmetric systems find something, then they will never tell us about it. Or didn’t they already say?

I would like to talk about this and much more in this topic directly relating to our security.
1603969270
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1603969270

Ignore
 1603969270

1603969270
 Report to moderator
1603969270
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1603969270

Ignore
 1603969270

1603969270
 Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603969270
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1603969270

Ignore
 1603969270

1603969270
 Report to moderator
Wintersoldier
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 274

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

 December 13, 2019, 10:20:35 AM

This could not be a threat, although there are numerous powerful super computers nowadays, encryptions are made in crypto to completely encrypt data. I know a bit in hashing but I'm not a computer knowledgeable person. I believe, what we are using are hashing algorithms that primarily not allowing the data to be decrypted going back to its source. And that technology makes it the most secured and reliable to people. Soon, these powerful supercomputers will not be focused on decrypting already existing data, but mainly in a purpose of creating stronger encryption.

 Poker [♠]]]]]  Roulette ( +•)Pyramid ■□  Slots [◉◎◎] ───────────────────777COIN───  C  A  S  I  N  O  ─── ★ The Most Exciting Bitcoin Casino!★ Secure and Provably Fair★ Altcoins Accepted
romero121
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1070

Bitsler

 December 13, 2019, 10:26:49 AM

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

 ▄███         ▄███▀       ▄███▀     ▄     ▄███▀      ███▄   ▄███▀         ▀███▄ ▄███▀             ▀███▄▐██▀  ▄███▄   ▄███▄  ▀██▌▐██▄  █████   █████  ▄██▌ ▀███▄ ▀▀▀     ▀▀▀ ▄███▀   ▀███▄         ▄███▀     ▀███▄     ▄███▀       ▀███▄▄▄███▀         ▀█████▀ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀▄▄  ▄▄▄▀▀██████████████▀▄▄      ▀███▄▀███████████ ██       ▄▄▄▀▀▀ █████████ ██▀▄▄▄▄  ██████   ████████ ▀▄██████ ███████  ████████   ███████ ▀▀██▀▄█ █████████   ▀▀██▀      ██ ███████████▄▀██▄▄       ▀▄██████████████▄▄▀▀▀  ▀▀▄▄██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▀▀██████████████▀▄█████▀▄████▄▀███████████ ███▀▀▄▄██████▀▄ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████▀▄███ █████████ ███▄▀▀██▀▀▀▄███ ███████████▄▀████▄▄█████▀▄██████████████▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▀▀██████████████▀▄██ ███▀▀▄▄▄ ▀███████████ █ ██ ▀▄▄███████ █████████ ▀██ ▄██▄▀▀▀██████ ████████ █  █▄▀█████▄▄▄▄▀▀ ████████ ▀▄█ ██▄▀█████████ █████████ ██▄▀███▄▀▀█████ ███████████▄▀█ ██████▄▄▀▀▄██████████████▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████  ███████████████████████▀       ▄▄▄▄██████████████▀      ▄███████████████████     ▐█████████████████████▌    ██████████████████████      ████████████████████▀  ██  ▐███████████████████  ███▌ ▐██████████████████▌ ████▌ ▀██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▄███         ▄███▀       ▄███▀     ▄     ▄███▀      ███▄   ▄███▀         ▀███▄ ▄███▀             ▀███▄▐██▀  ▄███▄   ▄███▄  ▀██▌▐██▄  █████   █████  ▄██▌ ▀███▄ ▀▀▀     ▀▀▀ ▄███▀   ▀███▄         ▄███▀     ▀███▄     ▄███▀       ▀███▄▄▄███▀         ▀█████▀
Kemarit
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1272

 December 13, 2019, 10:40:17 AMMerited by hugeblack (2), ETFbitcoin (1), DdmrDdmr (1)

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

LOL, do you think that quantum computers will be mass produces if ever they successfully crack 2^256 code? so it will not be for everyone's used. And for the record, there are a lot of development from behind. So far the following are candidates.

[1] Lamport Signature - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature#Public_key_for_multiple_messages)

[2] Multivariate cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_cryptography)

[3] Lattice-based cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography)

for the record though, bitcoin addresses are not at risk to attack not unless the attacker know your public key. The only way to attack us is that if the QC is fast enough to obtain our public key in a few minutes based on our private key.

 █████████████████████████████    ▀█████████████▀    ████      ▀████▀████▀      █████▄    ▄██▀   ▀██▄    ▄████████▄▄██▀  ▄▄▄  ▀██▄▄████████████▀    ███    ▀█████████████               █████████████▄    ███    ▄███████████▀ ▀██▄  ▀▀▀  ▄██▀ ▀████████▀   ▀██▄   ▄██▀   ▀██████▀   ▄▄ ▄███▄███▄ ▄▄   ▀████▄ ▄█████████████████▄ ▄█████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▄ ███████████ ▄▄▄▄ ████ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███████ ▄▄▄▄ █ ████ ▀ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███ ▄▄▄▄ █ ▀ ██████ ▀ █  █ ███ █  █ ▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀ ███ ▀▀▀▀ ████████▄ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▄████▄██████▌▐▀▄▀▄▀▌▐██████▄████▀▀▀████ █▄▀▄▀▄█ ████▀▀▀███████▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄████████████▌▐█████████▌▐█████████▄▄▄▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▄▄▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀██ ██▀█████████████████████▄███▄██████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ █ ██ █ ████ █▀▄▄▀█ ▐▀▄▄▄▀▌ ██▄▄██ ████ █▄▀▀▄█ ▐▄▀▀▀▄▌ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ ██████ ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█ █████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ █▀▄▀███████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ██▄████████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▀▄▀████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ███ ███ ███ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▄▀▄████ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ████████▀██ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ███████▄▀▄█ ████▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀█████████████▀▄▄███████████▄▄▀█████████ █████████████████ ███████ ███████████████████ █████ █████████████████████ ████ █████████████████████ ████ ████████████   ██████ █████ ███████████   █████ ███████ █████████████████ █████████▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄█████████████▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄███████████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄▄ ████ █████▄▀███████▀▄█████ █████▄▀█████▄▀███▀▄█████▀▄████████▄▀█████▄▀██████▀▄████████████▄▀█████▄▀██▀▄████████████████▄▀█████▄▀████████████▀▄▄▀▀▄██▄▀█████▄▀▀▄▀████████ ██▄▀████▄▀███▀▄██ ████████▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀██████▀▄██▀▄▀▀█ ███ █▀▀▄▀██▄▀█████▄▀▄████▄█████▄████▄▀▄██████████████████████████████ LIVE SHOWSSLOTSBLACKJACK ROULETTE  DUELS▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ CASHBACK██████ & ██████RAKEBACK ██████████████████████████
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 12:37:28 PM

This could not be a threat, although there are numerous powerful super computers nowadays, encryptions are made in crypto to completely encrypt data. I know a bit in hashing but I'm not a computer knowledgeable person. I believe, what we are using are hashing algorithms that primarily not allowing the data to be decrypted going back to its source. And that technology makes it the most secured and reliable to people. Soon, these powerful supercomputers will not be focused on decrypting already existing data, but mainly in a purpose of creating stronger encryption.
--------------------
The blockchain has two reliability technologies: hashing (and the Merkle tree) and a digital signature on cryptography on elliptic curves.
Hashing, I do not question.
And cryptography of elliptic curves - I expose. And not because I'm an expert. But because specialists with world names “refuse” it, not all, but those who did the research. Check out these facts:

"The discovery was not made by full-time employees of GCHQ (the British intelligence unit), but by the mathematicians of the CESG unit, which is responsible for national ciphers and the protection of government communications systems in the UK.

The close interaction between the GCHQ and the NSA is taking place primarily along the lines of joint intelligence activities.

In other words, since the NSA also has its own IAD (Information Assurance Directorate) department specializing in the development of cryptographic algorithms and information protection, the discovery of British colleagues was a complete surprise for the mathematicians of this unit.

Blockchain is hanging by a thread. The blockchain is saved by the non-compromised hashing function and its massive use and decentralization technology.

The most secret and powerful special service in the world (USA) back in 2015 FORBIDDEN to use ESA on which the SDC is based in Bitcoin.

This organization just does nothing.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 12:53:23 PMMerited by ETFbitcoin (1), Husna QA (1), Coolcryptovator (1)

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

LOL, do you think that quantum computers will be mass produces if ever they successfully crack 2^256 code? so it will not be for everyone's used. And for the record, there are a lot of development from behind. So far the following are candidates.

[1] Lamport Signature - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature#Public_key_for_multiple_messages)

[2] Multivariate cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_cryptography)

[3] Lattice-based cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography)

for the record though, bitcoin addresses are not at risk to attack not unless the attacker know your public key. The only way to attack us is that if the QC is fast enough to obtain our public key in a few minutes based on our private key.
-------------------------------------
When you talk about a 256-bit key, it’s only, exclusively, in a symmetric cryptographic system — this code can and should be sorted out completely. In other words, the key can be any of the possible values ​​of 256 bits (in fairness, it should be noted that not every single option can be a key even in a symmetric system, there are weak keys that are unacceptable, but there are an insignificant number of them).

If we are talking about asymmetric cryptography, then not all options from two to the power of 256 can be keys.

If you are afraid of quantum computers, then this is not the danger that you should pay attention to.

Although, it is asymmetric systems that can easily be opened with the Shore algorithm in the presence of quantum computing.

I persistently draw your attention to the danger of elliptical cryptography in the case of cryptanalysis, or in other words, a mathematical attack, rather than brute force attack.

Check the facts:
-----------------------------------
The American mathematician and cryptographer Neil Koblitz, is (along with Victor Miller) one of those two people who in 1985 simultaneously and independently came up with a new public-key crypto scheme, called ECC (this, we recall, is an abbreviation for Elliptic Curve Cryptography , that is, "cryptography on elliptic curves").

Without going deep into the technical details of this method and its difference from the RSA cryptographic scheme that appeared earlier, we note that ECC has obvious advantages from the point of view of practical operation, since the same theoretical stability of the algorithm is provided with a much shorter key length (for comparison: 256-bit ECC operations are equivalent to working with a 3072-bit module in RSA). And this greatly simplifies the calculations and significantly improves the system performance.

The second important point (almost certainly related to the first) is that the extremely secretive NSA in its cryptographic preferences from the very beginning began to lean in favor of ECC. (!)

In the early years and decades, this reached the academic and industrial circles only in an implicit form (when, for example, in 1997, an official of the NSA, Jerry Solinas, first spoke at the Crypto public conference - with a report on their modification of the famous Koblitz scheme).
Well, then, it was already documented. In 2005, the NSA published its recommendations on cryptographic algorithms, in the form of the so-called Suite B (“Set B”) - a set of openly published ciphers for hiding secret and top-secret information in national communication systems.
All the basic components of this document were built on the basis of ECC, and for RSA, the auxiliary role of the “first generation” (!) Was assigned, necessary only for a smooth transition to a new, more efficient cryptography on elliptic curves ... (!)

Now we need to remember about Alfred Menezes, the second co-author of the article about "Puzzle, shrouded in a riddle." The Canadian mathematician and cryptographer Menezes has been working at the University of Waterloo, one of the most famous centers of open academic cryptography, all his scientific life since the mid-1980s. It was here that in the 1980s, three university professors created Certicom, a company that developed and commercialized cryptography on elliptic curves.

Accordingly, Alfred Menezes eventually became not only a prominent Certicom developer and author of several authoritative books on ECC crypto circuits, but also a co-author of several important patents describing ECC. Well, the NSA, in turn, when it launched its entire project called Suite B, previously purchased from Certicom a large (twenty-odd) package of patents covering “elliptical” cryptography.

This whole preamble was needed in order to explain why Koblitz and Menezes are precisely those people who, for natural reasons, considered themselves knowledgeable about the current affairs and plans of the NSA in the field of cryptographic information protection.

However, for them, the NSA initiative with a sharp change of course to post-quantum algorithms was a complete surprise. (!)

Back in the summer of 2015 (!) The NSA “quietly”, without explaining absolutely to anyone, removed the “P-256” ECC algorithm from its kit, while leaving it with its RSA equivalent with a 3072-bit module. Moreover, in the NSA's accompanying statements it was quite clearly said that all parties implementing the algorithms from Suite B now no longer make any sense to switch to ECC, but it is better to simply increase the RSA key lengths and wait until new post-quantum ciphers appear ...

But why? What is the reason for such a sharp rollback to the old RSA system?
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 01:06:44 PM

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

LOL, do you think that quantum computers will be mass produces if ever they successfully crack 2^256 code? so it will not be for everyone's used. And for the record, there are a lot of development from behind. So far the following are candidates.

[1] Lamport Signature - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature#Public_key_for_multiple_messages)

[2] Multivariate cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_cryptography)

[3] Lattice-based cryptography - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography)

for the record though, bitcoin addresses are not at risk to attack not unless the attacker know your public key. The only way to attack us is that if the QC is fast enough to obtain our public key in a few minutes based on our private key.
---------------------------------------------
The cryptographic post-quantum systems you have indicated are well known for a long time and all of them have their drawbacks and advantages. You have not yet indicated everything, there are more of them.

And they were known far until 2015, when NIST announced a competition and this competition was supposed to end 2017-2018, but it continues to this day. Why do this if cryptography on elliptical circles is reliable?

Shore Algorithm? So increase the key length and no contests are needed.

For reference, I note that the 256-bit AES key = is 512 ECC and equal to 15300 bit RCA.

Why did they need a new encryption system if you can simply increase the ECC to 512 bits?
dothebeats
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1227

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

 December 13, 2019, 01:11:13 PM

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
 ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄█▀█▀█▄█ ▄▀▄ █ ▀███▀  ▄▄▄▄██▀▄█▄██▀▄███ ▀▄▄▄▀ ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ █ ██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▀▄█▀▀▀▀▄█ ▀███▀ ▄▄▄▄▀   ▀▄█  █▄ █ ▀▄██▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄▀ █ ▀▄█▀▀▄▀▀█ ▀▄█▄▀  ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀
|
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 01:35:36 PM

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.

It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.
----------------------------
The Google company itself may not be doing this, although it is not the only one who makes a quantum computer.

But strangers will do this for two reasons:

1. All companies that publicly announce the construction of a quantum computer - all provide access to it on a commercial basis!
This is a disturbing fact. And the Amazon company - purposefully plans to deal only with such services and writing quantum software.

2. Think of those who are used to stealing.

And most importantly, cryptanalysts. Their mathematical methods reduce the number of options that need to be sorted out. And quantum computing is what they need.

If a simple search and a simple computer need 10,000 years, then a quantum one - 3 minutes. This is without mathematical methods. If you use cryptanalysis, then reduce this time by 1000 times.

But I'm not talking about this, but about the fact that this happened in 2015-2016, that cryptography on elliptic curves became dangerous? Then there were still no quantum computers.
DreamStage
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 629
Merit: 258

 December 13, 2019, 01:42:00 PM

There will be much more implemented and worth solutions in the near future i am sure of that.
You can take for instance our current encryption systems in everywhere you go from password to 2fa to public and private keys acessing SSH.

Surely the best would be to increase max encryption byte sizes but that's way more complex to talk about it here.

About bitcoin you can expect something newer sooner or later till some hacker gets some cracking implementation.
If it gets cracked (assuming private keys hacked) developers will jump into and make it stronger.

That's when existing encryption will no longer exist and new one emerge.

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ BIG WINNER![15.00000000 BTC] ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES● PLINKO  |7| SLOTS  (+) ROULETTE  ▼ BIT SPIN  ■ DICE ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 13, 2019, 02:24:57 PM

There will be much more implemented and worth solutions in the near future i am sure of that.
You can take for instance our current encryption systems in everywhere you go from password to 2fa to public and private keys acessing SSH.

Surely the best would be to increase max encryption byte sizes but that's way more complex to talk about it here.

About bitcoin you can expect something newer sooner or later till some hacker gets some cracking implementation.
If it gets cracked (assuming private keys hacked) developers will jump into and make it stronger.

That's when existing encryption will no longer exist and new one emerge.
---------------------------
When you talk about SSH, you are actually talking about a protocol that is based on an asymmetric RCA system.

Good old system. The key length for this system is now 4096 bits. It seems like they’re not using it anymore.

To protect against quantum attacks (we are not discussing cryptanalysis, which is much more dangerous), the minimum key for this system should be 15,300 bits or 16,386 bits in machine form.
But why not use them?
Because the load on the computer will increase so that you do not like it.

And what can we say about post-quantum encryption, there the key lengths (in asymmetric systems) are so large that I don’t want to write.

In addition, you still have the main problem - the problem of confirming that this is your pair - public and private keys. After all, before you, anyone can generate them. And these are X.509 certificates of trust with all the ensuing consequences and risks.

In general, we again come to the traditional system of trust that we have been forced upon. And again we get all its charms - hacking, phishing, hacker attack on your computer to steal your keys, etc.

So this is not an option, this is the molding of old cryptography systems into a new protocol. Nothing really safe.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 15, 2019, 12:30:46 AM

As for the universal trust certification system, which serves to prevent such attacks, in fact, unfortunately, it will not be difficult for a fraudster to get a valid SSL certificate for his fake site - now it can be obtained in 20 minutes using special services.

So do certified phishing sites or phishing sites. It turns out that in real life, simple users need to take care of their own safety, and not rely on the proposed "trust system".
Wintersoldier
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 274

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

 December 15, 2019, 06:27:20 AM

It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.

Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency. In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.

 Poker [♠]]]]]  Roulette ( +•)Pyramid ■□  Slots [◉◎◎] ───────────────────777COIN───  C  A  S  I  N  O  ─── ★ The Most Exciting Bitcoin Casino!★ Secure and Provably Fair★ Altcoins Accepted
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 15, 2019, 07:08:29 AM

It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.

Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency. In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.
----------------------------------
Yes, this is so ... Organizations building their quantum computers - always operate within the framework of the laws of their country. I also don’t think that the blockchain protocol can be attacked by these quantum calculations.

But there is a danger of cryptography if the possibility of quantum computing is provided to the public, but they are provided.

Our entire digital life, security, is first of all cryptography. If it disappears, all our secrets will disappear. This is more dangerous than the blockchain itself.

Break down, become dangerous - even the Internet transport protocols, which now allow us to conduct operations with bitcoin !!!

1. Quantum computers are only a single occurrence today; approximately 5 companies have announced this loudly. But tomorrow it will become a mass phenomenon. For the reason that the mechanism for improving quantum computers has been launched. I read the latest news and I did not like them. Progress is very rapid. It is possible that in 10-15 years, quantum computers will be in our homes.
We can even conclude a bet.

2. The same Google company paid fines to the European Union for violating the laws of the confidentiality of user data. Moreover, the Google company, and not only it, didn’t do anything by accident. Therefore, it is not necessary to think that only angels work there.

3. And who will forbid companies to create quantum computers in countries or in places where laws are completely not as liberal as in other countries? The world is moving towards a separation of interests rapidly. And breaking laws is becoming more profitable. And our governments are becoming more irresponsible.

The disappearance, compromise, of our cryptography is a disaster for all Internet users!
alyssa85
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1088

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

 December 15, 2019, 11:57:45 AM

IF it looks like bitcoin's encryption looks likely to be broken, then the developers will simply work on an improved version and we all hard fork into that.

The idea that everyone is just sitting there passively and that there won't be a fight back is nonsense. There is too much money at stake, and I'm sure people are working on improved encryption as we speak.

 . ██████████.                              .████████████████.                           .██████████████████████.                        -█████████████████████████████                     .██████████████████████████████████.                  -█████████████████████████████████████████               -███████████████████████████████████████████████           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████              .████████████████████████████████████████████████                   ████████████████████████████████████████                      ██████████████████████████████████                          ██████████████████████████                             ████████████████████                               ████████████████                                   █████████ .YoBit InvestBox. | .BUY X10 AND EARN 10% DAILY. 🏆
kryptqnick
Legendary

Online

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1120

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

 December 15, 2019, 12:38:11 PM

It seems to me that it's impossible to make even an educated guess about that. It might seem nowadays that the progress if fast, and we don't have much time left, but people were sure that trips to Mars would be casual, whereas they still are not even close to that. In a TV series that I mention quite a lot here ('Silicon Valley') the team accidentally came up with an algorithm that compresses information in such a great way and keeps perfecting itself so fast that the strongest encryption there is, is about to get broken. It's a fiction story, of course, but we cannot know whether something like this can happen in 5 years from now, in a hundred years from now or never.
It seems to me that we are reaching the limit of the advancement of computers (transistors cannot become smaller for now, because quantum processes come in), and it's unclear whether we'll even crack quantum physics to make it work to our advantage, but we have to be cautious just in case.

▄▄█████▄▄███████▄▄
███████████
▀▀███▄
█████████████        ▀██▄
█████████████          ██▄
███████████            ██▄
██▀▀█████▀▀              ██
██                       ██
██                       ██
▀██                     ██▀
▀██                   ██▀
▀██▄               ▄██▀
▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
▀▀█████████▀▀
███████████    LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK & CASINO    ███████████
 MULTICURRENCY │ 1500+CASINO GAMES │ CRYPTO EXCLUSIVECLUBHOUSE │ FAST & SECUREPAYMENTS
..PLAY NOW!..
Twentyonepaylots
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 294

 December 15, 2019, 01:36:44 PM

It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.

Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency.
I don't think there are such regulation that prohibits quantum computer to mine cryptocurrency especially bitcoin just because it is powerful technology, If then, that regulation should also prohibit the centralized mining.
In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.
And I don't think that google is improving the quantum because of cryptocurrency or compromising other's system just to gain supremacy, it ain't that way. Google and IBM are running for a long time, it is their job to improve and develop our technology. Not even a single quantum computer is recommended to mine crypto coz that would generate so much electricity disproportion to its gains.

 ████▄             ▄██████████▄    ▄    ▄██████▀████▀  ▄███▄  ▀████▀▀▀  ▄██▀▀▀██▄  ▀▀▄████   ████▄███████████████▀████   ████▀▄█▄  ▀██▄▄▄██▀  ▄█▄▄███▄  ▀███▀  ▄███▄▄███▀▀█▀   ▀   ▀█▀▀███▄▀█▀                 ▀█▀ ██████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▄ ███████████ ▄▄▄▄ ████ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███████ ▄▄▄▄ █ ████ ▀ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███ ▄▄▄▄ █ ▀ ██████ ▀ █  █ ███ █  █ ▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀ ███ ▀▀▀▀ ████████▄ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▄████▄██████▌▐▀▄▀▄▀▌▐██████▄████▀▀▀████ █▄▀▄▀▄█ ████▀▀▀███████▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄████████████▌▐█████████▌▐█████████▄▄▄▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▄▄▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀██ ██▀█████████████████████▄███▄██████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ █ ██ █ ████ █▀▄▄▀█ ▐▀▄▄▄▀▌ ██▄▄██ ████ █▄▀▀▄█ ▐▄▀▀▀▄▌ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ ██████ ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█ █████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ █▀▄▀███████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ██▄████████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▀▄▀████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ███ ███ ███ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▄▀▄████ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ████████▀██ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ███████▄▀▄█ ████▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀█████████████▀▄▄███████████▄▄▀█████████ █████████████████ ███████ ███████████████████ █████ █████████████████████ ████ █████████████████████ ████ ████████████   ▐█████ █████ ███████████   ▐████ ███████ █████████████████ █████████▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄█████████████▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄███████████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄▄ ████ █████▄▀███████▀▄█████ █████▄▀█████▄▀███▀▄█████▀▄████████▄▀█████▄▀██████▀▄████████████▄▀█████▄▀██▀▄████████████████▄▀█████▄▀████████████▀▄▄▀▀▄██▄▀█████▄▀▀▄▀████████ ██▄▀████▄▀███▀▄██ ████████▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀██████▀▄██▀▄▀▀█ ███ █▀▀▄▀██▄▀█████▄▀▄████▄█████▄████▄▀▄██████████████████████████████ LIVE SHOWSSLOTSBLACKJACK ROULETTE  DUELS▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ CASHBACK██████ & ██████RAKEBACK ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████████
ChuckBuck
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 688

better everyday ♥

 December 15, 2019, 04:23:39 PM

Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.

This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.
Objectively, quantum computers were manufactured successfully by Google. It is unique, it will never be mass produced. Just like the way all big companies do, Google will use it as a proprietary tool to provide the most benefits possible. No hacker can afford to own a quantum computer, of course they can't crack bitcoin either. Moreover, quantum computers can't crack bitcoin, as we mentioned above.
Therefore, it will take a long time for quantum technology to develop more, and of course, the time of encryption is still very long in the future.

 .freebitcoin. │ ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄████████▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀████▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀████████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  ███▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██ █▄▄████████ █████   ███  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀     ▀▀████   ████▀▀ BITCOINDICE ▄▄█████████▄▄▄█▀▀  ███████  ▀▀█▄▄██▄  ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄  ▄██▄▄█████▀▄▄███████▄▄▀█████▄▄█████ ███▀▀ ▀ ▀████ █████▄█  ▀█ █████  ▄▄  ████ █▀  ██   █ █  ██     ▀█  █ █   ██  ▄█ █████  ▀▀  ████ █▄  █▀█████ ███▄▄ ▄ ▄████ █████▀▀█████▄▀▀███████▀▀▄█████▀▀██▀  ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀  ▀██▀▀█▄▄  ███████  ▄▄█▀▀▀█████████▀▀ EVENTBETTING │ ...$200....HOURLY FAUCET WIN A LAMBO !. ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄▀███████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▄█████▄█████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄▀████████▀▀▀█████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄ ▀▀▀████▄▄▄█████████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████ ▀█████▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ .PLAY NOW. darkangel11 Legendary Offline Activity: 1456 Merit: 1080  December 15, 2019, 04:43:00 PM I don't even want to mention quantum computers here. This whole idea is in such an early phase that even people working on this technology can't fully understand how to make it compatible with the existing binary software. How long will the encryption last? Probably as long as there's no real threat to its existence. People have a tendency to upgrade things when they need to. When one country makes a submarine another country makes locating beacons and sonars to detect it and so on. For now there's no impending threat so nobody cares and nobody tries to upgrade the security. tsaroz Legendary Offline Activity: 1988 Merit: 1066 Bounty Detective  December 15, 2019, 04:49:05 PM The current encryption technology is going to last less than what we predicted before. Bitcoin's encryption and private keys would be vulnerable by the year 2030. But only the chief projects working on it would achieve that feat and lets hope none of them would ever attack bitcoin.  BOUNTY DETECTIVE ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●● Powered by,Bounty Detective Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 15, 2019, 11:15:19 PM To summarize all of the above: 1. A conditional hacker does not need to have a quantum computer to carry out attacks. The problem is that companies (and there are more than 5) that own a quantum computer give it to anyone over the network. 2. Cryptography on elliptic curves, with a key length of 256 bits (this is a blockchain bitcoin) to crack, even by brute force attack (this is a method for a monkey man, a person without thinking, which everyone fears most, why?), Is easier than symmetric a system with the same key length a huge number of times, I can’t even write this number down here. 3. Cryptography on elliptic curves is the most controversial system of all about which at least something has been written. It has long been banned in serious matters. 4. There is a large class of weak elliptic curves. Did you check those elliptic curves on which you made your digital signatures on the blockchain? I’m sure it never occurred to you. And those who standardize and recommend them are themselves interested in having access to your secrets. Do you catch a thought? 5. The opinion of specialists in this field of knowledge. An international team of researchers led by Divesh Aggarwal of the Singapore Center for Quantum Technology. They argue that the algorithm for creating a digital signature based on elliptic curves may become vulnerable. The real threat, in their opinion, can be expected by 2027. 6. The opinion of other specialists. In March 2019, the head of the IBM blockchain direction Jesse Lund also warned about the likelihood of a threat to both the cryptocurrencies themselves and the involved cryptography methods. “Through reverse engineering, you can achieve private keys that provide access to wallets.” I think this is a real and substantial threat. Bitcoin is a public registry. Thus, you can see on which wallets the largest balances are stored, and then attack them, ”he said. Lund also noted that over time, the threat posed by the quantum computer will become more urgent. In particular, he emphasized, in the future, quantum computing will be able to calculate private keys using public keys as a template. Thus, according to him, more than half of the existing blockchain systems will be susceptible to this threat. 7. The opinion of experts. Associate Professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Vladimir Gisin believes that quantum computers really pose a certain threat to decentralized systems, blockchains and cryptocurrencies. According to him, the bitcoin blockchain risks being hacked when 100-qubit quantum computers appear. He also suggested that there may already be successful mechanisms for hacking the Bitcoin blockchain, but nothing is known about them, because their authors do not want to disclose their knowledge. “All Bitcoin security is based on some hypotheses that are not fully tested. For example, on the hypothesis that forgery of a signature on a bitcoin network is computationally unrealistic with modern computing power. But this is a hypothesis. 8. David Chaum, the “godfather” of the cipher bank movement and creator of the first anonymous electronic currency eCash, did not ignore the danger of quantum computing. In particular, he emphasized the importance of urgent development of quantum-resistant protocols. We have no way of knowing how far states have progressed in creating quantum computers. Government organizations have repeatedly cracked codes and gained access to unprecedented cryptographic capabilities for many years, but no one suspected this. Already, the crypto industry must change approaches and work closely on the creation of sustainable mechanisms and technologies, - Decrypt quotes Chauma. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 17, 2019, 09:09:05 AM Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future. But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies. Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago: "Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017." Polar91 Hero Member Offline Activity: 1120 Merit: 553 Filipino Translator 🇵🇭  December 17, 2019, 02:11:48 PM Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future. But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies. Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago: "Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017." It is just in a matter of regulation that each website should follow. I believe that in most countries they have their regulation and also for integrity purpose of each sites, they need to hash or encrypt all the information that is critical for the users. There is already been a wide span of choice for them to choose, there are many hashing algorithm that they could use, even a very easy one which is the MD5 is already good, but if they could use stronger algorithm such as SHA256 then sites will be reputable and information would be safe and secured. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 17, 2019, 03:06:02 PM Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future. But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies. Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago: "Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017." It is just in a matter of regulation that each website should follow. I believe that in most countries they have their regulation and also for integrity purpose of each sites, they need to hash or encrypt all the information that is critical for the users. There is already been a wide span of choice for them to choose, there are many hashing algorithm that they could use, even a very easy one which is the MD5 is already good, but if they could use stronger algorithm such as SHA256 then sites will be reputable and information would be safe and secured. ------------------------ Perfect is true. Password hashing - this should be the standard. But this is only a partial way out. After all, stealing the password hashes themselves makes the same sense for a hacker as visiting the passwords themselves. Let's think about it. 1. If the site "knows" only the password hash, and not the password itself, then in general the hacker is completely satisfied with it, it uses a hash that knows the site as a "password" and will be satisfied; 2. If you need to extract the password itself from the hash, for example, for interest (after all, the site does not know the password, because the hash is not reversible, it is not encryption), then the hashing algorithm does not protect the password as we need. It is selected easily, by software brute force, very quickly, because the hash functions you have chosen are very fast. It is easy to work with them to the cracker. This is an example of an attack when only a hash is known. Moreover, a complete search is not necessary. One out of 1000 people has a password that looks like a random set of characters in an amount of more than 15 pieces. Everyone else has a password and is shorter than 15 characters and not a random character set. And such passwords are easily cracked, if you ask how - I will give a link to a program that is absolutely legal, for those who have "forgotten" their password. So it is advertised. The only protection against theft of passwords and keys is passwordless authentication and its derivative - keyless cryptography. Who is interested here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0 And the team that took up this is here: https://toxic.chat/ Dabs Legendary Offline Activity: 2758 Merit: 1451 The Concierge of Crypto  December 17, 2019, 03:51:55 PM Has anyone cracked 4096 bit RSA public key encryption, the same one available to use in GPG? Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter? As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU. However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title. 128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue. Youghoor Sr. Member Offline Activity: 952 Merit: 260 IDENA.IO - Proof-Of-Person Blockchain  December 17, 2019, 04:09:34 PM Encryption has always existed since the creation and existence of this universe we find ourselves and been modified as years go by. So to answer your question ' How long will existing encryption last', the duration of the existence of a particular encryption will depend on how frequent the people or group that developed the encryption modify their encryption as the technological world keeps advancing. The duration of every encryption depends solely on how its been modify to suit the current state of its ecosystem.  ▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄ ▄▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▄ ▄▀▀ ▄▄▀█ ▀█▀▄▄ ▀▀▄ ▄▀▀ ▄▄▀ ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀ ▀▄▄ ▀▀▄ █ █ ▀ █ █ ▄▀ █ ▀▄▄ ▄█▀ █ ▀▄ ▄▀ ▄▀ █▄ ▀▀▀██▄▄▄ ▄▄▄██▀▀ ██ ▀▄ ▀▄ ▀▄▀▀▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▄ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄▀▀▄▀ ██ █ ██ ▀▄ ▀▄ █ █ ▄▀ ▄▀ ██ █ ▀██ █ ▄█ ▀█ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ █▄ ██▀ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▀▀ █▀ ▄▀ █▀▄ █ █ ▄▀█ ▀▄ ▀█ ▄ █▀ █ ▀█▄ ▀ ▀ ▄█▀ █ ▄▀█ ▄ █▄▀ █ █ █ █ ▀▄█ ▀▄ █ ▀█ ▄▄▀▄▀▄▄ █▀ █ ▄ ▀▄▀▀ █▄ █ ▀█ ▀▀▀ █▀ █ ▄█ ▄▀▀▄▀ ▀ ▄ ██ █▀▄ ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀ ▄▀█ ██ ▀▄ ▀ ▀█ ██ █ █▀▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▀█ █ ██ █▀ ▀▄ ▀ █ █ ██▄ ▄██ █ █ ▀ ▄▀ ▀▄ █ █ █ ▀█▄ ▄█▀ █ █ █ ▄▀ ▀▀▄█ █ ▀▀▀▀▀ █ █▄▀▀ ▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀ I D E N A Proof-of-Person BlockchainJoin the mining of the first human-centriccryptocurrency │││ ▲ 2 6 8 0N O D E S ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ▄ ██ ▄ ███▄ ██ ▄███ ▀███▄ ██ ▄███▀ ▀████████▀ ▀████▀ ▀▀██▄ ▄█████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ▀▀██████████████████████████▀▀ D O W N L O A DIdena node ▐ ▄▄████████▄▄▄███▀▀ ▀▀███▄▄██▀ ▀██▄▄██ ▄▄▄ ██▄▄██ ▄▄▄██████ ██▄██ ▄▄▄███████▀████ ████ ▀█████████▀ ▄████ ████ ▀████▀ ▄██████ ████ ▀ ▄███████ ██▀██ ██▀█████ ██▀▀██ █ ▀██ ██▀▀██▄ ▄██▀▀███▄▄ ▄▄███▀▀▀████████▀▀ ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄▄▄████████████████▄▄▄█████▀▀ ▀▀█████▄████▀ ▀███████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀██████ █ ▄▄ █▀▄ █████▀ █ ███ █ ▀▄ ▀█████ █ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀█ ██████ █ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ █ ██████ █ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ █ █████▄ █ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ █ ▄█████ █ █ ██████▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▄███████▄ ▄████▀█████▄▄ ▄▄█████▀▀▀████████████████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀ ▄▄████████▄▄▄███▀▀ ▀▀███▄▄██▀ ▀██▄▄██ ▄▄▄ ██▄▄██ █▄ █████▄▀ ██▄██ ███▄▄ ▄▄██████▀ ████ ██████████████ ████ █████████████ ████ ▀██████████ ██▀██ ▄████████▀ ██▀▀██ ▄▄████████▀▀ ██▀▀██▄ ▄██▀▀███▄▄ ▄▄███▀▀▀████████▀▀ ███████████ ███ █ █ █ █ ████ Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 17, 2019, 10:39:11 PM Has anyone cracked 4096 bit RSA public key encryption, the same one available to use in GPG? Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter? As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU. However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title. 128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue. ------------------- Unfortunately, you confuse the path of the monkey - this is hacking the system with brute force attack and the path of an intelligent person, the path of cryptanalysis is the mathematical solution to the problem of factorization and hacking RSA. Quantum computing - just as everyone sees it as a monkey path, as a brute force attack. But you can go through analysis, even with a quantum computer. 4096-bit RSA keys are easier than 96-bit keys in AES. Keys in AES less than 128 bits are not used anywhere. Why so? Because it breaks. In symmetric systems, the method of comparing plaintext with a ciphercode is a difficult task, you need to have a lot of text, you need to think a lot to calculate the key. In asymmetric systems, a cryptanalyst always has any amount of plaintext, encrypted text, and the public key is known. The cryptanalyst himself will write any amount of material for analysis - after all, the public key is not hidden. See the difference? Do not think that someday you will know the mathematical methods of hacking. Why would they tell us about this? These are big secrets. Cryptanalysis is a weapon, opening a cipher is a victory. That was the whole story. This is a tool that can get a lot of valuable prizes if it remains a secret! Cryptanalysts live secretly, lead a double life, and are guarded very well. Why? Why don't any serious organization use asymmetric cryptography? Because it is a household system, today it is forbidden to use it in important issues. And only symmetric systems are allowed. No one will make themselves difficult in life just like that. Do you agree? It means that they know something, but they are silent. Who knows - he is always silent. But we can observe and draw conclusions. Post-quantum cryptography is actively sought after. But they can’t find it yet! There were cases when the post-quantum system was actively offered, everyone clapped their hands, and then cryptanalysts worked - and the system was withdrawn from the competition. This is far from an isolated case! This is the path of cryptanalysis. By the way, the path of a monkey (brute force attack) in post-quantum cryptography is generally not possible even after hundreds of years, even by all super-quantum computers combined. The keys are different in different systems, but keys with a length of 38.64, 256 thousand bits (and not just a bit) are not uncommon there. There are even megabytes - and this is not the limit. So no one sees the danger of brute-force attack as a danger. Neither today nor tomorrow. Therefore your example: "As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019." - nothing more than a distracting maneuver from the problem. Why did they chase new asymmetric systems, if you can simply increase the key length in the same RSA? A system in which there are principles of factorization or discrete logarithm in the fields of numbers of any magnitude are not considered at all !!! Generally. Everything, RSA time is over. This is the rudiment that smart people fear. Why? What was so bad about our asymmetric household systems today? That’s why, for which there is only one answer - any modern asymmetric system is an ear on clay feet! seoincorporation Legendary Offline Activity: 1876 Merit: 1669 BtcBoss  December 17, 2019, 11:03:46 PM i think the current encryption should work for the next 10 years, and no more because with the new quantic computers our lovely sha256 will be obsolete. Encryption should grow at the same rate the technology grows. That's the only way we could walk in a secure way.  .BitDice. BTC - DOGE - LTC - ETH....CASINO.... ▄▄███▄▄ ▄▄██▀▀ ▄ ▀▀██▄▄ ▄▄█ ▀▀ ▄▄█████▄▄ ▀▀ █▄▄ ▄▄██▀▀ ▀▀ █████ ▀▀ ▀▀██▄▄██▀▀ ▄▄██▀ ▀███▀ ▀██▄▄ ▀▀████ ████▄▄ ███ ▄▄████ ████ █▀▀████▄▄ ▄█████▄ ▄▄████▀▀█ ████ ▀ ▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀ ▀ ██ █████████████ ▄ ▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄ ▄ ████ █▄▄████▀▀ ▀█████▀ ▀▀████▄▄█ ████ ████▀▀ ███ ▀▀████ ████▄▄ ▀▀██▄ ▄███▄ ▄██▀▀ ▄▄██ ▀▀██▄▄ ▄▄ █████ ▄▄ ▄▄██▀▀ ▀▀█ ▄▄ ▀▀█████▀▀ ▄▄ █▀▀ ▀▀██▄▄ ▀ ▄▄██▀▀ ▀▀███▀▀ ..LEVEL..S Y S T E M ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄███████████████▄ ████▀▀ ▀▀████ ████▀ ▀████ ████ ████ ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████▄█████████████████████████▄██████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ████████▄ ▄████████████▄▄▄ ▄▄▄████████ ▀▀▀█████████████████▀▀▀ ▀▀▀█████▀▀▀ Cold Wallet Storage using...TREZOR... ▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄███████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████ ▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄█████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████████████████▀▀███ ██ ██ ████████████████▄ ▄██ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ▄███████████ ██████▀▀██████ █████████████ ▀████▄▄████▀ ..MOBILE..READY [ ..BET BACK..Up To 0.05% Back / .LOSS BACK.Up To 0.1% Back ] Dabs Legendary Offline Activity: 2758 Merit: 1451 The Concierge of Crypto  December 18, 2019, 01:31:51 PM It is distracting, but it was a challenge as well that offered cash prizes. Today, people break it for the pride and honour or some other good feeling. It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence. Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all. 128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from. I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 18, 2019, 02:35:17 PM It is distracting, but it was a challenge as well that offered cash prizes. Today, people break it for the pride and honour or some other good feeling. It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence. Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all. 128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from. I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force. _------------ Everything you write has its basis. At the household level, it's a solid, well-founded position. For example: "I have never heard that..." ... Perhaps not everything can be heard, not everything is said. But there are words that experts, mathematicians, cryptanalysts say. You can find them if you are creative in this matter. You can check the facts that RSA is never used in serious cases. And only a notebook, a notebook for clothes, a Vernam cipher, the only cipher with Shannon's proven absolute resistance to hacking. You don't have to hear or know any of this, you don't have to worry about it, you don't have to check my words. It is possible not to develop and not to think. Here's how to answer the question: why are they looking for completely different encryption algorithms, rather than increasing the length of the key in the existing ones, in RSA? If RSA is reliable, does not give in to the mathematical analysis why the given kind of encryption, in all its variants - anybody except us inhabitants is not necessary? How break postquantum systems if there length of a key 512000 bits? And there is no quantum computer. And they are broken how? Let's make a key in RSA as a milker not 4096 bits, but 521000 bits and we will quietly use it. Why do we need new postquantum encryption systems? Why from hundred candidates, have chosen 10 but none have chosen finally? Maybe they forgot about RSA-4096, which is resistant to hacking? Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 18, 2019, 04:10:32 PM I have never heard that quantum computers can pose any danger to the hashing function in the version SHA-256. As far as I understand the principle of unidirectional cryptographic algorithms, they are fundamentally different from the mathematical techniques used in asymmetric cryptography. Therefore, the stability of SHA-256 is in the same segment (but not similar) as the stability of AES-256. And the stability is not only and not so much to the attack of brute force, but above all to attacks using cryptoanalytic methods. If RSA-4096 with a longer key length, or cryptography on elliptical curves, or any other asymmetric cryptography, which is based on unproven mathematical hypotheses, assumptions, would be dangerous for quantum calculations only in view of the danger of a brute force attack, no one would look for alternatives to the existing asymmetric systems. And simply increase the length of the key to any desired size. This is especially true for cryptography on elliptical curves. But no. No new systems with these (or similar) mathematical assumptions are considered at all. It happens because if the cryptanalysis has already found or will find a solution for these systems, the length of the key will not matter. I didn't come up with that, I'm just telling you in my own words what I've heard from the world's leaders in cryptography science. Now the question is. Why is the length of the key, if an asymmetric system is hacked, irrelevant? It will be the same method of hacking with any key length! Think about why this is so in RSA and not in AES. By the way, our good old AES-256 (not even 512) is left by NIST as the main method of symmetric encryption in the post-quantum era. Why? Maybe we should keep up with the times and come up with something new? Why, in post quantum encryption systems, keys with the size of 32 000 bits and much more - with time, it turns out, are cracked (!) and dropped out of the list of candidates? Maybe they forgot about super-reliable RSA with the key length as much as 4096 bits? Or they've forgotten about the ECC-512 (blockchain), so reliable that people have moved their capitals into this cryptography. And how many of these daredevils are there? Who knows... Who knows the answers to these questions? Artemis3 Hero Member Offline Activity: 812 Merit: 1025 upgrade PERFORMANCE  December 19, 2019, 03:24:42 AM It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things. Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency. In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies. ---------------------------------- Yes, this is so ... Organizations building their quantum computers - always operate within the framework of the laws of their country. I also don’t think that the blockchain protocol can be attacked by these quantum calculations. But there is a danger of cryptography if the possibility of quantum computing is provided to the public, but they are provided. Our entire digital life, security, is first of all cryptography. If it disappears, all our secrets will disappear. This is more dangerous than the blockchain itself. Break down, become dangerous - even the Internet transport protocols, which now allow us to conduct operations with bitcoin !!! 1. Quantum computers are only a single occurrence today; approximately 5 companies have announced this loudly. But tomorrow it will become a mass phenomenon. For the reason that the mechanism for improving quantum computers has been launched. I read the latest news and I did not like them. Progress is very rapid. It is possible that in 10-15 years, quantum computers will be in our homes. We can even conclude a bet. 2. The same Google company paid fines to the European Union for violating the laws of the confidentiality of user data. Moreover, the Google company, and not only it, didn’t do anything by accident. Therefore, it is not necessary to think that only angels work there. 3. And who will forbid companies to create quantum computers in countries or in places where laws are completely not as liberal as in other countries? The world is moving towards a separation of interests rapidly. And breaking laws is becoming more profitable. And our governments are becoming more irresponsible. The disappearance, compromise, of our cryptography is a disaster for all Internet users! I think we have to look history to have a very educated guess as the way this will develop. You see, classic computers started as large beasts only able to be built and own by the government (military) and later some large entities like banks. Yes there are rules, yes the first few ones will be closely monitored, but as time passes, technology improves, more will be built. Next stage is academia, for you know, research and serious use... And there you get students. The very first video games were written in such institutional computers. Certainly not for what they were primarily intended for... Also the first "hacks" and worms were coded in these types of shared use computers, back when it was impossible to personally own one (before the 70ies). This is the same that is happening to Quantum computers. They are giant monsters and can only have tens of qbits. But that is today, not tomorrow. I don't know about "home", but i think in 10 to 15 years, some more quantum computers will exist, and they will get to education because its needed for them to be used in the first place. Once they start getting into private hands and academia, you can guess that the first attempts at cracking classic crypto will be made, perhaps in secret. I frankly don't know if the very first users (the intelligence agencies) will try something against Bitcoin, just as proof of concept, or perhaps trying to do some operation against some target that happens to own bitcoin or so. It would be interesting to know what the NSA thinks of this, but its probably something that cannot be revealed in public. If i were to guess, they will go after communications first, and then slowly privately break their way into everything else. Remember that by the time quantum computers become personal, possible to own by individuals, the solution to this issue comes as well. I wouldn't be surprised if that would be the first reason to own one, to use quantum encryption. The dangers lie in the period from this very first early primitive institutional machines, to the point were they "reach home". Maybe we won't be alive to witness it, but that is no reason to not consider the issue and plan ahead. I also believe, that there will be a period of silence, when the real nasty stuff starts occurring. Also look at the international level. Why would Google go it AND tell you? If anything, they will want to have something to sell services to the NSA (like they currently do with data mining). That could be renting the computer, or having them commissioned to build one for them, etc. This is pretty much a given, contract might be given to IBM or someone else, i wouldn't be surprised if that's what they are actually racing for (and i bet they both will be contracted anyway). And these come with their respective gag order, don't expect them to announce it. "Oh, we have 100 qbit, o we have 300 qbit, oh we have 1000 qbit... silence". Then China announces 100 qbit, Russia announces 50 qbit, etc... Just look at how classical computers evolved, how much memory they had, what storage device (if any) and what capacities. The very first Hard drive was 5mb and the size of a refrigerator, iirc it didn't even use 8 bit but 7 or 6 (forgot). Go back in time, and think what the people then thought it would take for computers to have more storage, or ram. You laugh now but the infamous Xerox from Palo Alto (where both Apple and Microsoft copied the GUI ideas from) had only 3k of ram. It was a novel concept ahead of its time, because it also was "personal" of sorts, you only needed a large desktop rather than a whole room or building to set up one, it was meant as the office desktop computer that the world would see a decade or two later. Try to watch the videos of some restored ones on youtube. They had no "computer desktop" only gui in programs you start from console as ram was too limited... So in the 70ies the board from Xerox, despite having their own R&D literally inventing the future, paid no attention. This is similar to the current attitude some people have today about quantum computing. There are things being conceptualized today, that will require them. Quantum communications also have the ability to break (or tell) if spied upon. The mere observing changes the state, so if a third party sniffs, its caught upon instantly, or more accurately, the data becomes corrupted. Try to think the implications of this... And yes there are many kinds of things that would take years to solve that could be theoretically possible to do in minutes with them, and there will be new things to do as well, including quantum crypto.  ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ AUTOTUNINGMINING FIRMWARE| Increase hashrate on your Bitcoin ASICs, improve efficiency as much as 25%, and get 0% pool fees on Slush Pool ████████████████DOWNLOAD NOW████████████████ Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 19, 2019, 06:27:43 PM I agree with all the above. But once again, I want to turn the conversation the other way. The danger of quantum computers is conditional, even with the rapid development of this industry. And the danger of cryptanalysis for cryptography on elliptical curves is already present, even yesterday. It was already at a time when no one had ever announced their intention to build this technological quantum masterpiece. Let's think together, how to explain what happened. The facts: 1. NSA is buying every single patent from the creators of elliptical cryptography. (detailed in my topic by clicking here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0. December 4th post, second in line, check it out.) 2. Everyone is agitated for this new kind of asymmetric cryptography, because of the very strong reduction in key length relative to RSA with the same level of reliability. 3. Then, NSA orders a new ECC cryptography study from British mathematicians, for money. 4. Time passes, and in 2016 Toronto will bring together all the leaders of encryption and cryptanalysis and all the heads of the most important intelligence agencies in the Western world. What for? British mathematicians make a report on the ECC, which disappears from all available sources that publish not only materials on the subject, but even from the sources where the reports of these mathematicians were published personally. 5. The NSA makes a reversal and urgently recommends everyone to go back to RSA cryptography but with a key length of at least 3000 bits. Miracles. The most unexpected thing is the secrecy mode. It's come to the point where even the creators of the ECC, from whom the patents were bought, have not been informed of the reasons for refusal. 6. NIST (USA) standardizes elliptical curves, which are later recognized as weak and unreliable by external researchers. Why would NIST do this? Who knows, is silent. And we are left to conclude that there will be quantum computers of 100 cubic meters (this is enough, according to specialists from IBM, look above my posts) or not, the main danger for us will come from cryptoanalysts. Therefore, we closely observe, distrust and draw conclusions. For example, how many post quantum encryption systems have been rejected is a lot. Were they cracked by a quantum computer? - NO! And how were they broken? In all post quantum encryption systems, the key length is not available (even in the distant future) to any quantum computer. The keys to these systems are huge, from 32,000 bits to 2,000,000 bits. And by what methods were they discredited and removed from the list of candidates? The truth is, they've been broken without any quantum computing. And these systems are more complicated than RSA! That's what I suggest you think about. Apart from the monkey road, there's another one. By the way, did you know that Darwin never said or wrote anywhere that man was descended from an ape! He never thought so. He wrote openly what he thought. And we, as monkeys, are told that Darwin claimed that man was descended from a monkey! So until we see what's really going on with cryptography, or rather has already happened, we will remain monkeys who will be afraid and argue about the quantum computer. Let's take a broader look at this problem. The brute force method is not so dangerous. Darwin, I've always said that man is descended from a human monkey, not a monkey - it turns out they are completely different animals. Our ancestor is still being dug up, but they can't find him yet. And everyone needs him as proof of that theory... Or as proof that we're not monkeys? Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 20, 2019, 09:33:49 AMMerited by vapourminer (1) We ask ourselves the question, who cares about our safety? Who cares about making sure our cryptography is reliable? Is there anyone who will tell us that this cryptography can no longer be used? These are questions from the same logical series, the continuation of which is the question of "How long will existing cryptography last"? We tend to trust authorities, big world companies. Our psychology is organized in such a way that we believe big and strong, we think that they are very concerned about their authority and, therefore, about their users. But how to treat us, the ordinary consumers of cryptography and other means of protection, the actions of world industry leaders, given this example: "Two months after security researchers unveiled a new way to listen to Amazon Alexa and Google Home users talk, the same researchers found that Amazon and Google never fixed the problem. Back in October 2019, Security Research Labs (SRLabs) demonstrated how smart assistants can be used by criminals to eavesdrop on conversations, phishing and password theft. But as of December, nothing has changed! This was reported by SRLabs Managing Director Karsten Nohl. https://srlabs.de/bites/smart-spies/. What conclusions can we draw from this? Dabs Legendary Offline Activity: 2758 Merit: 1451 The Concierge of Crypto  December 20, 2019, 01:08:53 PM There are other things to consider, encryption is just a tool. I was (still am) in the military, so top secret communications are dealt with differently, but as an officer, I wouldn't mind using 4096 RSA. However, since I do have physical contact with most of the operators in the field, then it would be fine to also just use AES256 and use shared keys that they keep. (as opposed to one time pads, which was the traditional way of communicating with field agents.) Of course, that would mean said agents need a computer and can no longer decode by hand, but they should be resourceful enough to have them available from regular consumer hardware, or bring it with them in the form of some small device like a smart phone or small laptop. They also frequently use unencrypted radio anyway, so they have codes as well for that. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 20, 2019, 05:21:06 PM There are other things to consider, encryption is just a tool. I was (still am) in the military, so top secret communications are dealt with differently, but as an officer, I wouldn't mind using 4096 RSA. However, since I do have physical contact with most of the operators in the field, then it would be fine to also just use AES256 and use shared keys that they keep. (as opposed to one time pads, which was the traditional way of communicating with field agents.) Of course, that would mean said agents need a computer and can no longer decode by hand, but they should be resourceful enough to have them available from regular consumer hardware, or bring it with them in the form of some small device like a smart phone or small laptop. They also frequently use unencrypted radio anyway, so they have codes as well for that. _------------- My clarifying question to you, if you are allowed to answer: - why can't you use RSA-4096 to create and generate shared keys that are used for symmetric encryption? No computer? Because it is convenient and considered secure. The keys are created via RSA, and the secret information is encrypted via AES. In this case, the keys for AES can be constantly changed by the double ratchet of Mackley Marlinspike, as in E2E. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 22, 2019, 04:00:42 PM There are other things to consider, encryption is just a tool. I was (still am) in the military, so top secret communications are dealt with differently, but as an officer, I wouldn't mind using 4096 RSA. However, since I do have physical contact with most of the operators in the field, then it would be fine to also just use AES256 and use shared keys that they keep. (as opposed to one time pads, which was the traditional way of communicating with field agents.) Of course, that would mean said agents need a computer and can no longer decode by hand, but they should be resourceful enough to have them available from regular consumer hardware, or bring it with them in the form of some small device like a smart phone or small laptop. They also frequently use unencrypted radio anyway, so they have codes as well for that. -------------- Yes, another question, if I may, you mention: "...they also often use unencrypted radio, so they have codes for that." Does that mean they use disposable paper books with codes? Once they accept the code, they use one page of the notebook. The second time I took the code, the second page of the notebook. Is that it? If that's true, it's a disposable notebook system, basically Vernam's class encryption. It's the most secure kind of encryption available today. Not only that, it's the only type of encryption that is absolutely reliable of all the encryption systems that ever existed! It is the only system for which the Shannon theorem of absolute reliability was proven back in 1945. To change this system to RSA with any length of key is a loss of reliability. In addition, everything that is encrypted by the RSA system is carefully written down because there is a public key, which means that sooner or later everything will be decrypted. And why allow that? So your way of working is the best and most reliable. I think it is. tartibaya Full Member Offline Activity: 616 Merit: 101 "BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace"  December 22, 2019, 09:02:30 PM Blokchain encryption is too strong. This is an important issue for security. Today's technology is slow for these passwords. So passwords provide security. But Quantum Computers will increase post processing speeds. The Bitcoin algorithm will handle this. However, the problem is that 256 bit passwords can be broken. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 22, 2019, 09:36:24 PM Blokchain encryption is too strong. This is an important issue for security. Today's technology is slow for these passwords. So passwords provide security. But Quantum Computers will increase post processing speeds. The Bitcoin algorithm will handle this. However, the problem is that 256 bit passwords can be broken. ------------- You write passwords, but you probably mean keys? If you mention a 256 bit password, then maybe you mean a 256 bit encryption key on elliptical curves to create a digital signature? If that's the case, I have to disappoint you. Such tasks of cracking such a cryptography are solved by cryptoanalytic methods, which are not disseminated. And wait for the quantum computer to solve this problem too, only those little swindlers who do not know cryptanalysis can. When the creators of the blockbuster, whoever they were, chose which cryptographic system to make the digital signature, there was no information about the problems in ECC (cryptography on elliptical curves). On the contrary, the NSA was actively buying up and buying up all the patents for this cryptography. And then the sad events happened, and the NSA gave up on this cryptography. If you're interested in verifiable details, check out the December 4 post, the second one for that date here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.40. Interestingly, after this story, the NSA recommended switching from ECC-256 to RSA with a key length of 3000 bits and more. What's so unusual about that? The fact that the ECC-256 key corresponds in reliability to the key from 8000 bits in RSA. But cryptography on elliptical curves turned out to be so suspiciously unreliable, that in their opinion RSA even with such a small key, 3000 bits, is much more reliable than the ECC-256. So it's worth thinking about what we use, not just in block technology, but in general, what we use... Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  December 23, 2019, 09:35:33 AM That's why it's dangerous to use, even the most secure devices to encrypt secrets, fresh news: Way to crack passwords from email in iOS 13.3 has been found Elcomsoft has released iOS Forensic Toolkit, which extracts data from the locked iPhone on all versions of the system starting from iOS 7. It will require a Checkra1n jailbreak. It uses the checkm8 vulnerability, which is present in many Apple processors. There is no way to fix it. The list of supported devices is impressive: ▪ iPhone 5s▪ iPhone 6▪ iPhone 6s▪ iPhone 7▪ iPhone 8▪ iPhone X▪ iPad mini 2▪ iPad mini 3▪ iPad mini 4▪ iPad Air▪ iPad Air 2▪ iPad 2017▪ iPad 2018▪ iPad 2019▪ iPad Pro 10,5▪ iPad Pro 12,9 The company claims that its software works even when the device is in BFU mode. It activates after the gadget is rebooted, when the user has not yet entered the password. With iOS Forensic Toolkit, you can copy your iPhone and iPad file system, access your call history, access accounts for a variety of services including messengers and social media, and access Signal and WhatsApp encryption keys. The iOS Forensic Toolkit costs$1495. It can be purchased by anyone.
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 December 23, 2019, 02:44:30 PMMerited by vapourminer (1)

There are other things to consider, encryption is just a tool. I was (still am) in the military, so top secret communications are dealt with differently, but as an officer, I wouldn't mind using 4096 RSA. However, since I do have physical contact with most of the operators in the field, then it would be fine to also just use AES256 and use shared keys that they keep. (as opposed to one time pads, which was the traditional way of communicating with field agents.)

Of course, that would mean said agents need a computer and can no longer decode by hand, but they should be resourceful enough to have them available from regular consumer hardware, or bring it with them in the form of some small device like a smart phone or small laptop.

They also frequently use unencrypted radio anyway, so they have codes as well for that.
--------------
Yes, another question, if I may, you mention:
"...they also often use unencrypted radio, so they have codes for that."

Does that mean they use disposable paper books with codes? Once they accept the code, they use one page of the notebook.  The second time I took the code, the second page of the notebook. Is that it?

If that's true, it's a disposable notebook system, basically Vernam's class encryption. It's the most secure kind of encryption available today.

Not only that, it's the only type of encryption that is absolutely reliable of all the encryption systems that ever existed!
It is the only system for which the Shannon theorem of absolute reliability was proven back in 1945.

To change this system to RSA with any length of key is a loss of reliability. In addition, everything that is encrypted by the RSA system is carefully written down because there is a public key, which means that sooner or later everything will be decrypted.  And why allow that?

So your way of working is the best and most reliable. I think it is.

You're talking about one time pads. That's the really old school way of encrypting messages, using pen and paper, with no computer. But it requires code books.

When I said they use codes, I meant they use like code words so normal eavesdroppers don't easily figure it out. It's not the most secure, since they enemy can be listening in and eventually figure out what the words mean, but during the last world war, the US forces used "code talkers" who spoke a different language, over unencrypted radio. They even made movies about it.

When we talk about using RSA, yes, that's usually the method, you only actually use RSA to encrypt a one time use for that email symmetric key. Or in most cases, just use GPG.

But when there has been previous physical contact between the two parties, they can securely exchange keys that way.

As for the Apple thing, they still require physical possession of the device, and have to jailbreak it.

fenixosup
Newbie

Offline

Activity: 81
Merit: 0

 December 23, 2019, 02:46:46 PM

Exisiting mass encryption will be exist for a long time after quantum computer.
They should recieve really mass adoption to change it
tartibaya
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 101

 December 23, 2019, 03:57:22 PM

Existing encryption is already a model used in banking. It's very good for security. Hack cases usually occur with the method of fake. Or ponzi systems, people are losing their money. Very powerful computers need to emerge. I think there's still a good security structure.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 24, 2019, 04:28:01 PMMerited by Welsh (4), vapourminer (1)

Existing encryption is already a model used in banking. It's very good for security. Hack cases usually occur with the method of fake. Or ponzi systems, people are losing their money. Very powerful computers need to emerge. I think there's still a good security structure.
---------------------
Cryptography in bank security systems is common, household, conditionally reliable.

Attacking a bank's security system through a cryptographic attack itself is not necessary.

Cyber security in banks is so low that there are many other, more effective means of attack. And scammers always choose the easiest way.

Very strange solved the issue of cryptography, without our consent, in the protection systems of all banks.

They (I do not know who these people are) make a distinction between "commercial" or general cryptography (this is the one for us) and state cryptography.

Commercial cryptography must be based on the same standards throughout the world, because modern business, let alone banking, often goes beyond the borders of a single country.

But state standards for cryptography are much better, they cannot be distributed anywhere, they will only be used within government structures and as is done in the United States.

And despite this high level (relative to "our" bank cryptography), they must be updated every five years (at the algorithmic level).

Then it is even more interesting.

Commercial structures should not have access to this algorithm itself. Thus, it will be possible to apply simultaneously public "commercial" algorithms - for us, the simple and naive, and for the celestials - to ensure the normal preservation of state secrets and other important secrets.

We, bank customers, ordinary customers, not VIPs, are confronted by organized cybercrime, which has a huge, well-organized business that operates billions of dollars annually around the world.

Far from cyberattacks are not always protected by antivirus programs or data protection technologies, because hackers' technologies are always and constantly being improved.

The case has gone so far in the bad direction that:

1) American banks and online lenders Citigroup, Kabbage, Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, Hewlett Packard and Swiss Zurich Insurance Group announced the creation of a consortium on cyber security - it will be managed by the World Economic Forum.

2) SWIFT management has sent a letter to client banks warning of the growing threat of cyber attacks. A similar document was made available to Reuters editorial staff.
The letter from SWIFT also says that hackers have improved their cyberattack techniques on local banking systems. One new tactic involves using software that allows hackers to access technical support computers.
"Threats are constant, sophisticated and have a good degree of adaptability - and are already normal," says the letter SWIFT.
Unfortunately, we continue to see cases in which some of our clients are now compromised by thieves who then send out fraudulent payment instructions via SWIFT.

3) Check Point: The number of attacks on mobile banking has doubled in the first half of the year:

On August 1, 2019 Check Point Software Technologies released Cyber Attack Trends: 2019 Mid-Year Report. Hackers continue to develop new toolsets and methods aimed at targeting corporate data stored in the cloud infrastructure; personal mobile devices; various applications; and even popular email platforms. Researchers note that none of the sectors is fully protected against cyber attacks.

4) The Neutrino Trojan once again confirms that cyber threats are constantly evolving. New versions of known spies are becoming more complex, their functionality is expanding, and appetites are growing. And as the number of different digital devices grows, malware areas are also becoming wider.

5) Cyber criminals have learned how to steal data by distributing malicious plug-ins from over 80,000 sites on the Internet.

6) German banks refuse to support authorization via one-time SMS code
Several German banks announced in July 2019 that they planned to abandon the use of one-time SMS passwords as a method of authorization and transaction confirmation.

Over the past few years, the number of attacks using the "SIM swapping" method has increased, thanks to which a fraudster can deceive a telecom operator and transfer a user's phone number to another SIM card, gaining access to the user's online accounts with banks and crypt currency exchanges.

Cyber security specialists have been warning against using one-time SMS passwords for several years, but not because of "SIM swapping" attacks. The problem lies in the inherent and unrecoverable weaknesses of the protocol (SS7), which is used to configure most telephone exchanges around the world. Vulnerabilities in this protocol allow attackers to steal a user's phone number invisibly, even without the knowledge of a provider, allowing them to track the owner of the phone and authorize online payments or login requests.

And banks use this and impose it on their users as an "additional" security measure. A paradox?

7) 97% of large banks are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
On July 10, 2019 it became known that only three banks out of a hundred received the highest score in terms of ensuring the security of their sites and implementation of SSL encryption.
The vast majority of large financial institutions in the S&P Global rating are vulnerable to hacker attacks. This conclusion was made by the experts of the Swiss company ImmuniWeb on the basis of a large-scale study, which examined 100 sites owned by large banks, 2,336 subdomains, 102 Internet banking applications, 55 mobile banking applications and 298 mobile banking APIs.

Positive Technologies: All online banks are under threat of unauthorized access to bank secrecy.
On April 5, 2019 Positive Technologies reported that its experts assessed the level of security of online banks in 2018 and found that 54% of the surveyed systems allow attackers to steal money, and all online banks are under threat of unauthorized access to personal data and bank secrecy. According to the analysis, most of the online banks studied contain critical vulnerabilities. As a result of the online bank security assessment, vulnerabilities were identified in each system studied, which could lead to serious consequences.

9) Trojan under the name Android.BankBot.149.origin is distributed as harmless programs. After downloading to your smartphone, tablet and installation, it requests access to the mobile device administrator functions to make it harder to remove it. It then hides from the user by removing its icon from the home screen.

Then the virus connects to the management server and waits for commands.
It can do the following:
1. Send SMS messages;
2. to intercept SMS messages;
4. to execute USSD requests;
5. Receive a list of the numbers of all available contacts from the phone book;
6. To send SMS with the text received in the command to all numbers from the telephone book;
7. To track the location of the device via GPS satellites;
8. to request additional permission to send SMS messages on devices with modern versions of Android OS,
9. making calls,
11. Working with a GPS receiver;
12. obtaining a configuration file with a list of bank applications under attack;
13. display of phishing windows.

What do you think he can do with your "bank security"?
Whatever he wants to do!!!

And beyond that:

14. the Trojan steals confidential information from users, tracking the launch of "bank-client" applications and software to work with payment systems.
15. controls the launch of over three dozen such programs.
16. as soon as the virus detects that one of them has started working, it downloads from the management server the corresponding phishing form for entering the login and password to access the bank account and shows it on top of the attacked application.
17. In addition to stealing logins and passwords, the Trojan attempts to steal information about the bank card of the owner of an infected mobile device.

To do this, the virus monitors the launch of popular applications such as Facebook, Viber, Youtube, Messenger, WhatsApp, Uber, Snapchat, WeChat, imo, Instagram, Twitter, Play Market and shows a phishing window of the payment service settings on top of them.

18. Upon receipt of SMS, the Trojan turns off all sound and vibration signals, sends the content of messages to attackers and tries to remove intercepted SMS from the list of incoming ones.

As a result, the user may not only fail to receive notifications from credit organizations with information about unplanned money transactions, but also fail to see other messages that come to his number.

Conclusion:
- The imperfect security system (first of all, the bank system) does not allow us to use the mobile phone, which receives one-time SMS-passwords, for other purposes!
It should not be used for online banking (mobile banking)!
It is necessary to allocate a separate device (computer, smartphone, tablet) from which you can access and manage your bank account.

Moreover, this device should not be used for any other purposes other than online banking, including it should not be used for any other purpose:
- browsing the Internet;
- social networks;
- email;
- the device must be equipped with special software implementing the "default ban" function.

These are the restrictions that each of us has to apply - if we want to use banking products that are very vulnerable to attack, not cryptographic nature.

It is possible to live well and quietly, but only when you don't know this information.
The banking security system is a false myth, in our time.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 26, 2019, 05:59:41 AM

Scammers who specialize in hacking into bank security systems are not just looking for access to their victims' money.
It's complicated and thoughtful on their part.
They're hunting for the information they need.
Fraud not only involves using the money in the accounts themselves, but also often opens the door for further fraudulent activity. Criminals may use information obtained as a result of the successful theft of your personal data to further manipulate other financial products, such as consumer loans or credit cards.

Criminals have found and continue to find many opportunities for their illegal activities.

Do not believe advertisements about the boundless reliability of banking security systems. If this were the case, you wouldn't spend a lot of effort constantly modernizing such systems.

In general, a security system cannot be more reliable than the elements of which it consists.
I'm interested in its most important element - cryptographic.
A system built on key cryptography and password authentication methods will always be in danger.
Probably the only way out is with keyless encryption and passwordless authentication.

These options are discussed here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0.

And the possible first implementation of such a fundamentally new security system may be in this project:
https://toxic.chat/
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 26, 2019, 10:31:20 PM

Another example of how quietly and for a very long time it is possible to exploit the vulnerability of banking security systems.

It should be noted that these are not the last banks in the world.

And yet, it is impossible to keep silent that phishing, which is the basis of many attacks, is possible only in password authentication systems, in systems with a permanent client ID.

These improperly built security systems guarantee the existence of such facts.

14 Canadian banks were affected, among others:
1. CIBC bank;
3. Scotiabank;
4. Royal Bank of Canada (RBC);
5. other banks.
- were the victims of a large-scale phishing campaign that lasted for two years.

What good is it if fraudsters worked without problems for 2 years.

As noted by researchers from Check Point in their report, in the case of RBC attackers simply took a screenshot of the official site and added invisible text fields over the input fields to collect the credentials of the victim.

If you start collecting these facts, it's very quick to get a very thick and sad book...
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 December 27, 2019, 02:28:07 PM

Phishing = not "real" hacking, but rather a social engineering attempt at getting users to give up their own credentials. It's not the fault of the system or the bank, but user error.

Even more effective are invisible keyloggers, as they can then get passwords for any other website or online banking account the victims log into.

Again, that's not the fault of the encryption or the bank.

But it is indeed a problem.

fiulpro
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 544

Duelbits*-

 December 27, 2019, 02:37:45 PM

Actually hacking is really hard and requires n number of softwares , the thing what people call hacking now a days might just be your accidental mistake , like opening up your FB id from a link sent to you , therefore that's two different fields , what can be done is :-
You need to secure your own system first , after that you need to limit your usage of apps and devices .
It is gonna take a while for people to figure out how to hack something like cryptography that we are using today but we all know that it is inevitable , that's what the whole thing is about , the IT sector improves every hour, every minute therefore expecting any less would be wrong .

 █████████████████████████████    ▀█████████████▀    ████      ▀████▀████▀      █████▄    ▄██▀   ▀██▄    ▄████████▄▄██▀  ▄▄▄  ▀██▄▄████████████▀    ███    ▀█████████████               █████████████▄    ███    ▄███████████▀ ▀██▄  ▀▀▀  ▄██▀ ▀████████▀   ▀██▄   ▄██▀   ▀██████▀   ▄▄ ▄███▄███▄ ▄▄   ▀████▄ ▄█████████████████▄ ▄█████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▄ ███████████ ▄▄▄▄ ████ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███████ ▄▄▄▄ █ ████ ▀ █ ▄▄▄▄ ███ ▄▄▄▄ █ ▀ ██████ ▀ █  █ ███ █  █ ▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀ ███ ▀▀▀▀ ████████▄ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▄████▄██████▌▐▀▄▀▄▀▌▐██████▄████▀▀▀████ █▄▀▄▀▄█ ████▀▀▀███████▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄████████████▌▐█████████▌▐█████████▄▄▄▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▄▄▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀██ ██▀█████████████████████▄███▄██████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ █ ██ █ ████ █▀▄▄▀█ ▐▀▄▄▄▀▌ ██▄▄██ ████ █▄▀▀▄█ ▐▄▀▀▀▄▌ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ██████ ▐█████▌ ██████ ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█ █████████████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ █▀▄▀███████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ██▄████████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▀▄▀████ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ███ ███ ███ ████ █▀▄▀▄▀▄ █ ████▄▀▄████ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ████████▀██ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ ███████▄▀▄█ ████▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄█████████████████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀█████████████▀▄▄███████████▄▄▀█████████ █████████████████ ███████ ███████████████████ █████ █████████████████████ ████ █████████████████████ ████ ████████████   ██████ █████ ███████████   █████ ███████ █████████████████ █████████▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄█████████████▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄███████████████████████████████████ █████████████████████████████ ▄▄▄▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄▄ ████ █████▄▀███████▀▄█████ █████▄▀█████▄▀███▀▄█████▀▄████████▄▀█████▄▀██████▀▄████████████▄▀█████▄▀██▀▄████████████████▄▀█████▄▀████████████▀▄▄▀▀▄██▄▀█████▄▀▀▄▀████████ ██▄▀████▄▀███▀▄██ ████████▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀▄███▄▀██████▀▄██▀▄▀▀█ ███ █▀▀▄▀██▄▀█████▄▀▄████▄█████▄████▄▀▄██████████████████████████████ LIVE SHOWSSLOTSBLACKJACK ROULETTE  DUELS▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ CASHBACK██████ & ██████RAKEBACK ██████████████████████████
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 27, 2019, 03:28:55 PM

Actually hacking is really hard and requires n number of softwares , the thing what people call hacking now a days might just be your accidental mistake , like opening up your FB id from a link sent to you , therefore that's two different fields , what can be done is :-
You need to secure your own system first , after that you need to limit your usage of apps and devices .
It is gonna take a while for people to figure out how to hack something like cryptography that we are using today but we all know that it is inevitable , that's what the whole thing is about , the IT sector improves every hour, every minute therefore expecting any less would be wrong .
---------------------
As for improving the IT security sector, my opinion is that we are always trying to be inspired by the idea that the new security product you buy or use is better than the old one.
But it is not always the case.
More often than not, it is a myth that is spread by the sellers of products for our security.
History knows a lot of cases when new top IT products were hastily made and were inferior to the old proven software solutions.
We live in a world of public opinion.
And as long as huge efforts are made to support this public opinion, there is no way to find out if the new is better than the old until time itself settles the dispute between the disputing parties.

And now, about the facts of time.

Try to look at statistical studies, about successful attacks today compared to what happened 5 years ago.
This is the right indicator of how our IT security is evolving.

Yes, you will find that many of the bugs of the past have been fixed, and seem to be reliable.
You will also find that cheaters are developing very much ahead of the security industry.
You will also find that security administrators will find out about their bugs once they are detected by scammers.

And you're always told, like this:
- a dangerous vulnerability has been discovered, so urgently install the latest update;
- or so: the vulnerability cannot be fixed with an update, you need to change the software;
- or so (as with the vulnerability of almost all Apple iPhones since model 7): this vulnerability cannot be corrected programmatically, a hardware replacement is required...

And beyond that is the paradox of our perception:
- the first group thinks it's okay, because the vulnerability was discovered and warned about it (the question remains behind the scenes, but what security holes weren't warned about?);
- the second group, more courageous, believes that in such cases, the security system fails to perform its duties, especially when the found shortcomings have already been exploited by criminals.

The pseudo-security industry does everything to make the first group of users dominate the second.

And what group do you think you belong to?

P.S.
Given that, year after year, the financial and reputational losses from cybercriminals are steadily increasing, not decreasing.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 28, 2019, 11:12:25 PM

Phishing = not "real" hacking, but rather a social engineering attempt at getting users to give up their own credentials. It's not the fault of the system or the bank, but user error.

Even more effective are invisible keyloggers, as they can then get passwords for any other website or online banking account the victims log into.

Again, that's not the fault of the encryption or the bank.

But it is indeed a problem.
-----------------------------
You correctly noticed that this is really a problem.

Speaking directly, but not counting on the support of a large number of people, the problem with any key encryption system is the keys.

We develop thought in this direction.
Once upon a time, this was not so noticeable.
This problem emerged over time, after a statistical analysis of the causes of successful cybercrimes.

For this reason, I advocate only new passwordless authentication methods that are based on the new keyless cryptography. Interestingly, in this field of knowledge, there are almost no publications and studies.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0

The whole world sees no alternative to either keys or passwords.

In a wonderful world we live, we find it hidden from our eyes, but we don’t notice the obvious on the surface.
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 December 29, 2019, 04:30:28 AM

I notice that it is a problem, but I also notice that it is mostly, or almost all of it, a user problem. It's not a technical problem. Good password systems do work. It's the users that reuse old passwords, or increment digits to new passwords, or some other variation that is now found in most brute force password cracking algorithms.

People using names, using dates, using numbers that look like dates, using words they thought only they knew but are in many dictionaries, and using any of those previously mentioned mixed and matched up with rules that are now configurable in the latest generation word list generators for crackers.

Randomly generated passwords do not just get hacked. They are found through some other weak spot in the entire system. Usually, it's the user. Or some other low tech method like a hidden camera over the keyboard, or a hardware keylogger that can't be detected.

Anyone who is smart enough to use a password that looks like a Bitcoin address or Bitcoin private key, just once, for only one particular website or system, and uses completely different passwords for different systems, do not get hacked unless targeted individually by government agencies. Then you're screwed no matter what.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 29, 2019, 08:41:49 AM

I notice that it is a problem, but I also notice that it is mostly, or almost all of it, a user problem. It's not a technical problem. Good password systems do work. It's the users that reuse old passwords, or increment digits to new passwords, or some other variation that is now found in most brute force password cracking algorithms.

People using names, using dates, using numbers that look like dates, using words they thought only they knew but are in many dictionaries, and using any of those previously mentioned mixed and matched up with rules that are now configurable in the latest generation word list generators for crackers.

Randomly generated passwords do not just get hacked. They are found through some other weak spot in the entire system. Usually, it's the user. Or some other low tech method like a hidden camera over the keyboard, or a hardware keylogger that can't be detected.

Anyone who is smart enough to use a password that looks like a Bitcoin address or Bitcoin private key, just once, for only one particular website or system, and uses completely different passwords for different systems, do not get hacked unless targeted individually by government agencies. Then you're screwed no matter what.
--------------------
I fully agree with that opinion.
But I do not agree that stealing password and other personal information by means of phishing is not a technical problem and it is the problem of inattentive user.
It's not just your opinion, it's a public opinion.
Moreover, I think this opinion has been softly imposed on society by those who cannot and do not want to solve this problem using technical methods.
I'm sure that society will change soon.
Phishing is possible only when you do not authenticate the website, but only the website authenticates you. Only with one-way authentication.
Moreover, once you are caught in phishing, you lose a lot, you do not know that you are already attacked, or you will never know about it.
The security system makes this problem our problem.
And I think it's an old, wrong opinion imposed on us.
I think it's technically possible to do two-way authentication.
But there's more to it than that. We need to ban authentication with permanent identifiers, as it is now.
These technical measures will completely eliminate phishing as a method, as a phenomenon.
And instead, we are offered to "look closely" at the site and remember in detail how it looks.
This is in the 21st century! This is ridiculous! It means that the whole old security system is unsuitable in our time.
I recently read how phishing attackers deceive the most attentive users - they take high-quality photos of the site and put the necessary active windows to enter the login and password.
What to do in this case? To be very attentive is not a method, it is a complete failure of password authentication technology.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 30, 2019, 09:25:29 AM

Well, phishing can be left in question whose problem it is.
The whole world has put that responsibility on the user.
I strongly disagree with this, and I'm putting this responsibility on the security organizers.
There's no point in arguing.

But it makes sense to look at the root of the problem.

As none of the times I have pointed out that until the basis of modern security system changes - the reliability of any new security system will not change.

In other words, all the upgrades and sewing up of holes will not stop the appearance of new problems in a system with an unreliable basis.

An unreliable basis for all security systems is keys and passwords.

It's a bold statement, but it's thoughtful.  You need to look at the essence, not the form.

I'll give you a fresh example to defend your position.

You are a user. There is a manufacturer. The manufacturer is in trouble. You use it without suspecting that there are vulnerabilities that affect the Intel Platform Trust (PTT) technology and STMicroelectronics' ST33 TPM chip.
What do you and I (users) have to do with this?
Vulnerabilities in TPM chips allow stealing cryptographic keys. A team of researchers from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (USA), the University of Luebeck (Germany) and the University of California at San Diego (USA) discovered two vulnerabilities in TPM processors. Exploiting problems commonly referred to as TPM-FAIL allows an attacker to steal cryptographic keys stored in the processors.
This chip is used in a wide variety of devices (from network equipment to cloud servers) and is one of the few processors that have received CommonCriteria (CC) EAL 4+ classification (comes with built-in protection against attacks through third-party channels).

The researchers have developed a number of attacks, which they call "timing leakage". The technique is that the attacker can determine the time difference when performing TPM repetitive operations, and "view" the data processed inside the protected processor. This technique can be used to extract 256-bit private keys in TPM used by certain digital signature schemes based on elliptical curve algorithms such as ECDSA and ECSchnorr. They are common digital signature schemes used in many modern cryptographically secure operations, such as establishing TLS connections, signing digital certificates and authorizing system logins.

So this is the subject of our disagreement - keys and stealing them.

It turns out, "A local attacker can recover an ECDSA key from an Intel fTPM in 4-20 minutes, depending on the access level. Attacks can also be carried out remotely on networks by recovering the VPN server authentication key in 5 hours," the researchers note.

This news would not be revealing to our discussion,
if news like this hadn't come from all over the world like rain.

There's no cybersecurity, it's a software salesman's myth.
Think of the number of critical updates released by Microsoft (or rather microscopic software) to their operating systems, exactly like a storm...
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 December 30, 2019, 04:54:53 PM

It's nothing to do with the technology. There is no cure for user incompetence except training them on how to use systems. They trust the wrong things, that's not the fault of technology.

I'm not arguing, just telling it as it is. Users who give their passwords to other people or entities other than the official website in question, well ... that's how they compromise their accounts.

btcmurat
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 253

 December 30, 2019, 09:26:32 PM

Quantum computers have opened the door to a new technology. The old encryption methods will now remain simple. However, this technology has not yet become widespread. No problem until it becomes widespread. Malicious people now have more action

 ▄▄▄▄▄                  ▄▄███████████▄▄        ▄▄███████████████████▄▄  ▄█████████████████████████▄█████████████████████████████████      ▀██▀  ▀██  ████████████  ███   █    ██  ████████████       █  ██  █  ████████████  ███            ████████████         █████        ████████████████████████████████ ▀█████████████████████████▀   ▀▀███████████████████▀▀        ▀▀███████████▀▀                 ▀▀▀▀▀ .BUYANYLIGHT..LIGHT SOURCING REVOLUTIONIZED. ██████████████ .REFERRAL CAMPAIGN  ◈  EARN UP TO 10% IN BTC/ETH.██.████.██ ██████████████
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 December 30, 2019, 11:19:01 PM

Quantum computers have opened the door to a new technology. The old encryption methods will now remain simple. However, this technology has not yet become widespread. No problem until it becomes widespread. Malicious people now have more action
-------------------
There's always been a problem with cryptography.
The story even 10-20 years ago tells us that.

There are problems in cryptography now, except for symmetric encryption systems.

The problems that we see in cryptography are much more serious than the problems that a quantum computer will create.

Just before the quantum computer, the problems were known to a narrow circle of people and only to special organizations.

The advent of quantum computing has added new problems, which are now readily shared with everyone, in order to hide the real problems in cryptography.

Information for thought, even a theoretical very large quantum computer will not do anything with the number 256 bits in a binary system. And if you increase the key length in AES to 512 bits - you can forget about any fantastic calculations at all.

And if you increase the key length in AES to 1024 bits, even the idea of quantum computing becomes ridiculous.

In this case, the load on calculations will increase only 2-4 times, which is not a problem.

And the key length in post quantum systems with the length of 32 000 bits is considered small at all. There are systems with the key length up to 1,000,000 bits.
So what?
Or do you think these systems are afraid of a quantum computer with that much key length?

Therefore, a quantum computer is a terrible "Halloween" for the uninformed about the present state of affairs in modern cryptography.

Modern asymmetric cryptography (the one that is being replaced) is a temporary phenomenon based on unproven hypotheses.

The same is true for the security of the block-chain technology, a precisely temporary phenomenon, precisely based on assumptions that cannot be verified.

Details here (second post of December 4):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.40.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 03, 2020, 12:12:22 AM

The most sophisticated security system, any security system based on keys and passwords is vulnerable in these very places.
Individually, each of us can arrange secure storage of keys and passwords. But overall, it doesn't work well.

Here's the news again! The price of our security has dropped to a record $6. That's how much the program to hack into our accounts in one of the forums. Check out the full text: "Ring and Amazon have been sued for hacking into IoT video surveillance cameras. The lawsuit charges the companies with breach of contract, invasion of privacy (!), negligence, unfair enrichment, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Act "by misrepresenting security". Interesting wording: "by misrepresenting security". In the same way, it is possible to formulate a claim against almost all companies that release all the software. It's a sober view of our security situation. But Ring has refused to comment on this situation. Recall that in mid-December, credentials for thousands of Amazon Ring camera owners were published on the Internet, as well as 3,672 email addresses, passwords, time zone information and names assigned to specific Ring cameras (such as "front door" or "kitchen"). It has also become known that cyber criminals have created special programs to hack into company devices. In one of the forums, the user offered a tool to pick up Ring.com credentials for$6.
Here is the price for password and key security systems.

And the following news shows that such systems flow like a hole in a boat:

Provider of "smart" devices Wyze has leaked data to 2.4 million customers.

Smart Device Provider Wyze confirmed the data leak from the server.
Information such as client email addresses for Wyze accounts, names assigned by users to security cameras, WiFi network SSIDs and Alexa voice helper tokens used to connect Wyze devices to Amazon devices were leaked to the network.

Yes, I understand that stealing passwords (or keys) is not literally breaking cryptography, but it is a measure of the unsuitability of such technologies in today's reality. Yes, we've learned how to attack. More successfully than 10 years ago. And the techniques of such attacks are constantly being improved.

I am convinced that real superiority over swindlers can be achieved only through the introduction of new keyless encryption technologies and authentication methods without using a password, by variable digital identifiers (we are not talking about biometric identifiers), stealing and reusing variable identifiers makes no sense.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 04, 2020, 12:51:43 PM

It is not clear what is the point in reliable cryptography if no one is going to break it directly, but its keys are stolen.

Indeed, according to the same logic, it is unclear what the meaning will be in post-quantum cryptography or even post-post-quantum if the same keys are stolen.

The same security system holes remain and operate, regardless of the level of complexity of the system.

Maybe existing cryptography will not live long because of problems related to keys and the human factor? And not because of quantum computers?

I give an example of exploiting vulnerabilities that have remained a mystery:

-In 2014, it became known about the activities of a highly professional cybercriminal group called Carbanak, specializing in attacks on banks. It is assumed that the group managed to withdraw a total of more than $1 billion from various banks - while other cybercriminal groups failed to surpass this result. Among the most noteworthy events, it is worth mentioning the large-scale hacking of the Italian company Hacking Team, specializing in the development and sale of hacker tools to special services of various countries. As a result, cyber attacks stole more than 400 GB of corporate data, which subsequently ended up on the Web. But this is an organization that worked for the government, special services, which itself knows how to steal anything and from anyone - it itself has suffered! But this is a real paradox. If they did this to them, then what can they do to us? Didn't the fundamentals of existing security systems based on keys and passwords compromise themselves completely and irrevocably? How many more examples should humanity have to get in order to understand the inconsistency of the cyber security solutions that we are offered. I remain a committed follower of new keyless encryption technologies and passwordless authentication methods. There is a similar in this project: https://toxic.chat Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  January 05, 2020, 09:02:51 AM Or here's an example, it's not clear how a security vulnerability worked, but it seems to me that they got to the keys - passwords - and made it a crime: Yesterday, on January 3, Chrome extension stole$16 thousand in cryptographic currency!

A user of Ledger Secure malicious extension for Chrome lost $16 thousand in ZCash encryption. As it later became known, this little-known extension was disguised as Ledger's popular crypto wallet - the latter's developers had already disavowed the malware in the Chrome Web Store. It is claimed that the Ledger Secure extension sends a passphrase to a third party, which allowed the attackers to steal 600 ZCashes from the victim's account. This user, nicknamed hackedzec on his Twitter account, also specified that he entered the passphrase on his computer only once 2 years ago and that it was stored as a scanned document. Which storage option contributed to the theft of the crypt currency from the wallet is still unknown. How exactly the extension got into Chrome's browser also remains a mystery, but it was discovered when hackedzec found an unknown file on your computer with links to your Ledger Secure Twitter account. The account simulates the official representation of the French company Ledger. Earlier MyCrypto detected similar malicious software in the Chrome Web Store. The extension, called Shitcoin Wallet, was freely distributed in Google's directory and stole private keys and authorization data from various cryptographic exchanges such as Binance. What a twist! Now we can't even trust the monsters the whole system relies on! Tell me, where is the solid ground in this sea of uncertainty? I'll tell you where, but few people will believe it - in systems without passwords and keys. A paradox? I don't think so. It's a rescue. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  January 06, 2020, 11:56:14 AM In general, a leak of data, any private data, may result in compromising accounts through password mining based on stolen information or using a stolen password. Same scheme of attack development - on key information with the same or greater consequences. Fraudsters also think about our bank data and methods of finding them or information that allows to access bank card data, pin codes, etc. in the same way. As we can see from these observations on the logic of swindlers' attack, the ultimate goal is password, key, pin code and other permanent user identifiers. The main word in this last sentence is Persistent Identifiers. And it does not matter what these identifiers are. What matters is their main disadvantage - their permanent nature. Here is some known information, think about it: 1. Unknown persons have published unencrypted email addresses and user passwords in the public domain. Security researcher Bob Diachenko discovered an unsecured Elasticsearch database back on December 4 this year, but it was indexed by the BinaryEdge search engine and has been publicly available ever since. The database contained 2.7 billion e-mail addresses and over 1 billion unencrypted passwords to them. Database analysis showed that most of the data is a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the nickname DoubleFlag. 2. In 2019, there were more than 14 billion user data records in the public domain around the world! This figure is twice as high as the user data leak in 2018. Thought it over. Now the questions: 1) Why so many? It's so much that calculations show - it's probably almost all users on the planet! 2) And why is it coming out? 3) And where is the certainty that we are not in these bases? 4) Who says anything that steals in this sphere is published? Who knows, is silent. I draw one conclusion - we're all in danger of cyber crimes. It's for these reasons that we advocate variable user IDs that make no sense to steal and sell. Voland.V Full Member Offline Activity: 210 Merit: 118  January 07, 2020, 10:59:58 AM And then again the mass theft and then the total sale of our user data. Earlier on the black market Dream Market in darkness were put up for sale 617 million accounts stolen from users 16 compromised sites. For$20,000. in bitcoins anyone could buy 162 million compromised Dubsmash accounts, 151 million MyFitnessPal, 92 million MyHeritage, 41 million ShareThis, 28 million HauteLook, 25 million Animoto, 22 million EyeEm, 20 million 8fit, 18 million Whitepages, 16 million Fotolog, 15 million 500px, 11 million Armor Games, 8 million BookMate, 6 million CoffeeMeetsBagel, 1 million Artsy and 0.7 million DataCamp.

I think that whoever invests 20,000 bitcoins in this illegal deal will not do it just to destroy them.

Let's say our, your, my private data, passwords got into these databases. What are we supposed to do?  Change our passwords, our IDs.

It's the constant change of our numeric identifier that suggests passwordless authentication technology. This change is permanent and it doesn't matter if your secret data is stolen or not.
Agree that not all of the information about what is being reported reaches us.

So, why expect this if you can prevent such an outrage, even if every day they steal now, will not be able to use it.

This is the innovation and essence of the technology of variables but deterministic for only one package of information, digital user IDs.
This is the essence of passwordless technology of user authentication by the server, user authentication by the user, etc.

And such authentification occurs necessarily in two directions, on other it is not possible.
This completely excludes phishing regardless of the level of preparation of the attacker and the degree of carelessness of the user.
Wintersoldier
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 274

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

 January 07, 2020, 12:14:40 PM

The current encryption technology is going to last less than what we predicted before.
Bitcoin's encryption and private keys would be vulnerable by the year 2030.
But only the chief projects working on it would achieve that feat and lets hope none of them would ever attack bitcoin.
Is there someone who could testify if that conjecture is true? Or some resources that could tell? Because providing an exact year of time by 2030 is quite suspicious, though, I do really think that future technologies such as the quantum computers could help make the encryption of blockchain technologies even more secured and strong. But if it could be used to decrypt encryption, I think we could somehow say bitcoin's encryption which is the SHA256 is quite in danger.

 Poker [♠]]]]]  Roulette ( +•)Pyramid ■□  Slots [◉◎◎] ───────────────────777COIN───  C  A  S  I  N  O  ─── ★ The Most Exciting Bitcoin Casino!★ Secure and Provably Fair★ Altcoins Accepted
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 January 07, 2020, 02:16:58 PM

See, I personally don't have any accounts in all those sites that were mentioned. But if I did, I would use a unique username and password for each one.

Password reuse is the biggest problem and people are just lazy to use different ones for different sites.

However, that is a user problem, not a problem of the system. The problem of the sites is a separate matter and that's a security issue.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 07, 2020, 07:53:03 PM

The current encryption technology is going to last less than what we predicted before.
Bitcoin's encryption and private keys would be vulnerable by the year 2030.
But only the chief projects working on it would achieve that feat and lets hope none of them would ever attack bitcoin.
Is there someone who could testify if that conjecture is true? Or some resources that could tell? Because providing an exact year of time by 2030 is quite suspicious, though, I do really think that future technologies such as the quantum computers could help make the encryption of blockchain technologies even more secured and strong. But if it could be used to decrypt encryption, I think we could somehow say bitcoin's encryption which is the SHA256 is quite in danger.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, quantum computers do not make encryption better.
Cryptography (encryption) is getting ready to accept the challenge of quantum computing.
But methods to counter such a threat are new post-quantum encryption systems on a regular computer.
The main requirement for such systems is the lack of modern encryption principles used in public and private key systems. Namely, factorization and discrete logirification in the fields of very large numbers.
And most importantly - no elliptical curves.
The reason for rejecting any cryptography on elliptic curves is that I have described more than once and in detail. The main reason for the unreliability of cryptography on elliptic curves is the elliptic curves themselves. There is no proven means to verify their safety. On the contrary, there is a lot of data about weaknesses in curves certified by the same NIST. And this is not a joke. This is like a special operation. Those who do not know about this problem, but do not know the absolute majority, use it. And those who implemented this cryptography use their knowledge, the weaknesses of this encryption method for their own purposes.

Many weaknesses of modern cryptography systems constitute a state secret. That is why this cryptography is not used in serious matters.

In everyday life - please encrypt, for those who really need it - they will decrypt it, but they will never tell you about it, this is a secret.

If this were not so, then we would not be looking for new post-quantum encryption systems, but simply would increase the key length in existing ones.

Blockchain based on SHA256 and ECC - in doubt today. But I think that its reliable place is only SHA256.
The fact is that the AES-256 remains a post-quantum system. The reason is simple - a quantum computer, even of the second generation, never breaks a 256-bit key, because, in symmetric systems, all the values ​​of this key work. And in asymmetric systems - only a very small part of the whole set.
But a symmetric system does not break with mathematical methods (this is cryptanalysis), and all modern asymmetric ones, including our ECC, breaks. Therefore, to increase the key length in ECC - it makes no sense.

Therefore, it does not accept any asymmetric system based on modern encryption principles for the NIST contest.

And if the AES-256 remains, then the SHA256 remains, this is the same level of reliability. Moreover, if the system does not break mathematically (by cryptanalysis), then increasing the key length, any number of times is not a problem.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 09, 2020, 09:36:15 PM

In the meantime, no security system can withstand an attack.

They steal passwords, keys, confidential information in the most secure and well-funded security system - the banking system.

According to CNBC, the largest British retail banks have been forced to stop processing orders in foreign currency after a cyber attack on the exchange provider Travelex.

The company's computer systems were unavailable for more than a week after the malware attack on New Year's Eve, which left Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, among others, unable to process transactions.

Ever stop the rise in cybercrimes?

There's something wrong with our "protectors"...
DarkDays
Legendary

Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1161

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

 January 09, 2020, 11:55:49 PM

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
 ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄█▀█▀█▄█ ▄▀▄ █ ▀███▀  ▄▄▄▄██▀▄█▄██▀▄███ ▀▄▄▄▀ ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ █ ██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▀▄█▀▀▀▀▄█ ▀███▀ ▄▄▄▄▀   ▀▄█  █▄ █ ▀▄██▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄▀ █ ▀▄█▀▀▄▀▀█ ▀▄█▄▀  ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀
|
Polar91
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 553

Filipino Translator 🇵🇭

 January 10, 2020, 07:14:14 AM

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.

If that is the case, I highly doubt it would be possible, because algorithms run by quantum computers are totally different, if they tend to break the encryption of bitcoin, they need to use the same algorithm that classical computers use, but with a bigger processing power, but who knows about it, I highly believe that even before a 2,500 qubits of quantum computing power would be invented, quantum computers do already generate a whole new set of encryption that will make it harder for quantum computers itself to break.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 10, 2020, 12:15:27 PMMerited by DarkDays (1)

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.
-
There is no connection between the problem of finding a private key knowing the public key (and knowing the ciphertext, the problem of asymmetric encryption systems) and the problem of finding the law of obtaining hash from input information.
These are fundamentally different problems. Mathematically, the first task is cryptanalysis.
The second one is solved by brute force attack.
That's why we need so many kubits to solve the SHA256 task.
But protection against this danger is also very simple; SHA256 can be easily made into SHA512 or 1024.
But you can't do that with a pair of public key + private key. This cryptography breaks down with any length of key, including mathematical.
For this reason they are looking for new post quantum systems to replace asymmetric encryption systems.
It is for this reason that symmetric encryption systems do not need to be upgraded to withstand quantum computers.

There is one more option, you can see the details here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 January 10, 2020, 01:41:30 PM

Any symmetric system or block cipher using 128 bits or more won't be breakable by brute force anytime in the near future, and unlikely to be cracked within the next several decades or centuries. So using 256 or more is not a problem.

It's the asymmetric system, such as RSA and ECC which you are really concerned about. Still, 2048 or higher RSA public keys are unlikely to be cracked any time soon, so those using 4096 shouldn't see a problem either. ECC, I'm not so sure about, but whatever is the equivalent in length, same thing.

DarkDays
Legendary

Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1161

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

 January 10, 2020, 03:51:20 PM

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.
-
There is no connection between the problem of finding a private key knowing the public key (and knowing the ciphertext, the problem of asymmetric encryption systems) and the problem of finding the law of obtaining hash from input information.
These are fundamentally different problems. Mathematically, the first task is cryptanalysis.
The second one is solved by brute force attack.
That's why we need so many kubits to solve the SHA256 task.
But protection against this danger is also very simple; SHA256 can be easily made into SHA512 or 1024.
But you can't do that with a pair of public key + private key. This cryptography breaks down with any length of key, including mathematical.
For this reason they are looking for new post quantum systems to replace asymmetric encryption systems.
It is for this reason that symmetric encryption systems do not need to be upgraded to withstand quantum computers.

There is one more option, you can see the details here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0

As far as I'm aware, current attempts at making Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies quantum-computer proof actually rely on using a complete different solution, rather than simply moving one step ahead by using more robust encryption.

See the following: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180410

It outlines a slow defence against quantum attacks, and a novel solution IMO;

"We then propose a simple but slow commit–delay–reveal protocol, which allows users to securely move their funds from old (non-quantumresistant) outputs to those adhering to a quantum-resistant digital signature scheme."

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
 ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄█▀█▀█▄█ ▄▀▄ █ ▀███▀  ▄▄▄▄██▀▄█▄██▀▄███ ▀▄▄▄▀ ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ █ ██ ▀▄▄█▀  ▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▀▄█▀▀▀▀▄█ ▀███▀ ▄▄▄▄▀   ▀▄█  █▄ █ ▀▄██▀  ▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀█▄██   ██ ▀█▄█▀ ▄▄▄▄▀ █ ▀▄█▀▀▄▀▀█ ▀▄█▄▀  ▄▄▄▄█ ▄▀█▄██ ▄▀██ ▀▄▄█▀
|
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 10, 2020, 09:30:32 PMLast edit: January 11, 2020, 08:15:40 AM by Voland.V

Any symmetric system or block cipher using 128 bits or more won't be breakable by brute force anytime in the near future, and unlikely to be cracked within the next several decades or centuries. So using 256 or more is not a problem.

It's the asymmetric system, such as RSA and ECC which you are really concerned about. Still, 2048 or higher RSA public keys are unlikely to be cracked any time soon, so those using 4096 shouldn't see a problem either. ECC, I'm not so sure about, but whatever is the equivalent in length, same thing.
---
You're wrong about RSA and ECC. The key length only matters if the mathematical problem of factoring or discrete logarithmization is not solved.  In fact, none of us, ordinary consumers, know or this problem has been solved today. But it is precisely known that this problem is easily solved by a quantum computer, the Shore algorithm and other loopholes have been open for a long time.
In this case, RSA and ECC and other asymmetric systems will not resist these solutions with any key length.
It wasn't me who said that, it was world-renowned cryptographs.
It's a well-known and open fact to the public. That is why, neither RSA nor ECC, nor any modern or new encryption system built on the same principles (factorization and discrete logarithmization) are suitable for the role of a post-quantum asymmetric encryption system. Systems with these principles are not considered candidates at all because they all break down at any key length.
We are talking about ECC in general. The topic is detailed in my post, second from December 4, here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.40

About the length of the key. The 256 bit AES key is 16,000 bits of RSA by reliability. The 4096 currently in use is not reliable. Increasing the key in RSA doubles the load on the processor from 8 or more times. That's why you cannot increase the key length in RSA. And soon it won't make any sense.

Even earlier, when we did not dream about quantum computers, it was strictly forbidden to use RSA or ECC in serious cases. This is a household cryptography, the reliability of which has not been proven to this day. Sadly, it's a fact. These systems are based on legends, not on serious arguments.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 13, 2020, 01:55:28 PM

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.
-
There is no connection between the problem of finding a private key knowing the public key (and knowing the ciphertext, the problem of asymmetric encryption systems) and the problem of finding the law of obtaining hash from input information.
These are fundamentally different problems. Mathematically, the first task is cryptanalysis.
The second one is solved by brute force attack.
That's why we need so many kubits to solve the SHA256 task.
But protection against this danger is also very simple; SHA256 can be easily made into SHA512 or 1024.
But you can't do that with a pair of public key + private key. This cryptography breaks down with any length of key, including mathematical.
For this reason they are looking for new post quantum systems to replace asymmetric encryption systems.
It is for this reason that symmetric encryption systems do not need to be upgraded to withstand quantum computers.

There is one more option, you can see the details here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0

As far as I'm aware, current attempts at making Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies quantum-computer proof actually rely on using a complete different solution, rather than simply moving one step ahead by using more robust encryption.

See the following: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180410

It outlines a slow defence against quantum attacks, and a novel solution IMO;

"We then propose a simple but slow commit–delay–reveal protocol, which allows users to securely move their funds from old (non-quantumresistant) outputs to those adhering to a quantum-resistant digital signature scheme."
-------------------
I understand that a protocol is a set of rules.
But the basis on which any protocol stands in this matter is cryptography.
Cryptography can be one, but there are many protocols based on it.
Therefore, any protocol that describes the behavior of participants in a post-quantum period of time should be based only on post-quantum cryptography.
If we are talking about blockchain technology and bitcoin, then I have a question:
and what cryptography will be the basis of the new protection protocols and the transition from technology based on conventional cryptography to new technology based on post-quantum asymmetric cryptography?

The NIST contest is not over yet, I have only such information on this issue.
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 January 13, 2020, 03:31:11 PM

Your statement implies that anyone or someone has been able to factor RSA numbers, or factor large numbers to their primes.

If that's possible or easier, then quantum computers have a good purpose. We should see more of GPG getting cracked left and right though. I'm not seeing those yet.

We'd also see all sorts of this all over the internet.

Please show us an example of 2048 bit RSA number being factored.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 13, 2020, 06:00:23 PM

Your statement implies that anyone or someone has been able to factor RSA numbers, or factor large numbers to their primes.

If that's possible or easier, then quantum computers have a good purpose. We should see more of GPG getting cracked left and right though. I'm not seeing those yet.

We'd also see all sorts of this all over the internet.

Please show us an example of 2048 bit RSA number being factored.
--------------------
I'm not a cryptographer or a mathematician.
I read and analyze what cryptographers and mathematicians say.

I read about these people to understand how authoritative they are in their questions.

As a result, all I do is talk like a parrot what big people say.

But I analyze facts, for example:
- why NIST doesn't even see RSA as a possible post-quantum encryption system;
- why the terms of the competition prohibit any system based on the same principles as RSA or ECC;
- why other systems, such as McEliece, have been rejected (vulnerabilities found), then upgraded, and are again among the candidates, and RSA or ECC do not want to accept upgraded?

Why are all attacks on RSA classified, except for some that we know:

- Richard Shreppel's "linear sieve" algorithm, which factor in any RSA module {\displaystyle n} n length {\displaystyle [\log _{2}n]+1}. {\displaystyle [\log _{2}n]+1} bit;

- John Pollard[en] proposed a factorization algorithm called the General Method for a numeric field lattice. This algorithm factorized the RSA module {\displaystyle n} n dimension {\displaystyle \log _{2}n}. \log _{2}n bit using {\displaystyle 2^{(1,9\dotso +o(1))(\log _{2}n)^{1/3}(\log _{2}\log _{2}n)^{2/3}}. {\displaystyle 2^{(1,9\dotso +o(1))(\log _{2}n)^{1/3}(\log _{2}\log _{2}n)^{2/3}}} simple operations;

- Peter Shore suggested an algorithm that factors any RSA module {\displaystyle n} n dimension {\displaystyle b=\log _{2}n}. {\displaystyle b=\log _{2}n} bit using {\displaystyle b^{2+o(1)}} b^{{2+o(1)}} (more precisely {\displaystyle b^{2}\cdot \log(b)\cdot \log(\log(b))}.  {\displaystyle b^{2}\cdot \log(b)\log(b))}) qubit operations on a quantum computer of the order {\displaystyle 2\cdot b^{1+o(1)}}.  {\displaystyle 2\cdot b^{1+o(1)}} cube (and a small number of auxiliary computations on a classic computer).

I think it is possible not to be a mathematician, and not to be an idiot, so as not to soberly look at the state of modern asymmetric cryptography, even having that little information, which is allowed for public viewing.
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 January 14, 2020, 02:07:45 PM

I'm also not both, but understand a little bit about them enough to assure myself that if I use 4096 bit or even 2048 bit RSA public/private keypairs, I'll be reasonably secure and all my communications will remain private until they are useless to anyone else; quite possible forever too.

One day, they may be easily cracked by then modern computers, but that's either decades or centuries away, I'll be dead, and it won't matter then.

Summary: AES is fine for the next hundred years maybe, or maybe even forever. RSA and ECC = depends, maybe just a few years.

Websites use something called ephemeral keys, and other communications like Signal use perfect forward secrecy.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 14, 2020, 05:08:59 PM

When I talk about cryptography, I don’t apply it to myself, but I am interested in the question in principle. And no matter how many years later, who will die.

It is interesting to discuss the matter in principle. Is all modern cryptography a temporary phenomenon or for many, many years ?.
Reputable organizations, for reasons that have not been disclosed to us, intensively, for many years, are looking for a replacement for RSA and ECC.
Well, why not increase the key length and forget about quantum computers for the next 100 years.

Moreover, it is so obvious and simple, if everything is reliable, that I can not find an explanation for this.

Moreover, cryptosystems based on the principles on which RSA and ECC are based are not considered at all.

I want to understand why? What is the mystery?

And most importantly, these are the keys. They are always stolen. This is an axiom.

Signal is nothing new and better from the point of encryption than in all major messengers.
Protocol only. Good protocol.
It gives normal anonymity, but nothing safe from the point of view of cryptography. The same keys, the same dangers. Mekley Marlinspike (he is the author of this protocol) is a decent person and did everything as well as possible. But the keys - where do you escape from this vulnerability? It doesn’t matter that they are constantly changing, there are a lot of them even for one session, but they steal as easily from the device as from the server. But the worst thing is that the same asymmetric cryptography is used to coordinate them. And it doesn’t matter that the encryption of information is a symmetrical system, they hunt for keys, and so far successfully.
Speaking of good protocols, since cryptography is the same everywhere, Treema's anonymity is much better than Signal. This messenger is even harder to crack.

But everywhere there is a weak point - only one, modern asymmetric cryptography. This is not what I came up with.

As for the new cryptographic systems, of interest are those in which the keys, if any, are not consistent with asymmetric cryptography and are used only once, literally - one bit - one key.
And such systems exist, are developing, and much better than “quantum cryptography”.

These systems generate a Vernam class cipher. And this is the only code, the absolute durability of which is proved in the absolute sense of the word.

Examples:
1. Technological path of development, one-time binary tape, Vernam cipher:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13740-y

2. Software development path, one-time binary tape, Vernam cipher, geometric keyless methods:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0

How long do modern asymmetric systems last?
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 15, 2020, 12:45:56 PM

We use modern key encryption.
Even assuming that all systems that work for our benefit are absolutely secure, even so, our security system is not secure.

No crook would hack into a cryptographic system. He doesn't even care how it works or what it's called.

Fraudsters always hunt for keys.
They take advantage of the fact that encryption stands in our user programs as a component that we don't choose, we don't discuss it with the manufacturer.

It's the same with keys. We don't choose them, we don't invent them, all this work is done programmatically.

That's what crooks use.
There are two groups:
One. Real criminals, villains;
2. Governments and special organizations, big corporations that have to protect us, they're robbing us.

The facts and statistics of cybercrime show that it is dangerous to use the keys (they are impracticable to remember to a person) and passwords on modern devices.

It turns out that for a reliable operation of a cryptographic system, of any key system, it is necessary to restrict access of the device to the keys. This is an unsolvable problem in key systems.

But in today's trend - you cannot use keys or enter passwords from our devices, because all devices - work not only for you, but for someone else, we do not know who.

Judge for yourself:

1. Confirming news:
U.S. authorities are distributing a subsidized smartphone with an embedded virus.

Millions of poor Americans have received a subsidized smartphone under the FCC Lifeline Assistance Program. But the device came as a surprise - it has a built-in virus in its firmware. This software cannot be removed because it does not have root access rights.

The Unimax UMX U686CL smartphone was provided under the Mobile Accessibility Program.

2. And those we trust:
- Microsoft has been listening to and processing the voices of Skype and Cortana users for years without any security measures. This was told by Guardian, a former contractor who spent two years processing user voices using a personal laptop at his home in Beijing. He received his login and password from Microsoft via email in unencrypted form, with a very simple login and one password for everyone.

3) Similar spyware was found on all Samsung smartphones and tablets.

This problem was pointed out by one of the users of social news site Reddit. These are Device Care features that are actually present on mobile devices from the Korean manufacturer.

Samsung itself does not deny that Qihoo 360 uses a Device Care module designed to store data on the device. However, the manufacturer does not explain why the software interacts with Chinese servers on a regular basis. Qihoo 360 has previously been involved in several privacy scandals, including hidden data collection.

The source has warned that giving such a dubious company access to all data on the device is at least risky. He explained:

"The smartphone memory scanner has full access to all your personal data because it is part of the system. However, according to Chinese law, it must send this information to the government upon request". ”

So why should we discuss the reliability of the encryption system, any encryption system, even post quantum, even if the keys are stolen from the device itself!

Unbelievable, but the facts speak for themselves.
Make a conclusion.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 16, 2020, 06:35:25 PM

No matter how much we talk about key cryptography, we always fear for the keys.
It's hard for me to compete with major cryptography and security experts.
But to listen to authoritative opinions, to analyze the information I've received, I've decided what is necessary.

So, the researchers of Blockchain technology have repeatedly noted this idea:
- even though all asymmetric cryptography, on which the Bitcoin defense is based, is based on the mathematical apparatus of elliptical curves, it is not a reason to calm down.
The matter is that, as the research showed, elliptic cryptography is not a panacea for such vulnerabilities as low entropy and software implementation errors.
Moreover, experts have revealed many examples of repeating SSH- and TLS-keys belonging to different certificate holders.
Digital signatures were detected in Bitcoin system, allowing to know a temporary key, which, in its turn, will give an intruder a corresponding private key and an opportunity to steal the cryptographic currency.

I will not assess the level of real danger of the software products that we have to use, but it is worth thinking about.

What are our keys and passwords to if the programs and devices are not reliable? The seldom you use the same key, the same password - the more secure you are.
Or am I wrong?
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 16, 2020, 07:09:48 PM

This is the confirmation of my conclusions that the software, as well as the devices, are dangerous.

Dangerous, especially for keys and passwords.

January 16th, the freshest:
The first PoC attack with Windows vulnerability in crypt32.dll for spoofing Github and NSA sites is presented.

The day after the patch was released for one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in Windows history, security researcher Saleem Rashid demonstrated how it can pass off a malicious site as any site on the Internet in terms of cryptography.

We're talking about the CVE-2020-0601 vulnerability in the crypt32.dll cryptographic library in Windows, which allows you to sign malicious files so that the system will accept them as legitimate, as well as forge digital certificates. The problem was detected by specialists from the U.S. National Security Agency who reported it to Microsoft.

On Wednesday, January 15, Rashid posted a screenshot on Twitter that shows the music video Never Gonna Give You Up by popular 1980s singer Rick Estley playing at Github.com and NSA.gov. Using the vulnerability, the researcher was able to spoof Github and NSA websites in Edge and Chrome browsers.

Rashid's exploit consists of 100 lines of code, but it can be easily compressed to 10 lines if you cut "a few useful chips," the researcher told Ars Technica.

Other experts agree with colleagues at the NSA.
"With the help of the script, you can create a certificate for any site, and it will be trusted in IE and Edge with the standard Windows settings.

This is awful!

Don't forget that trusted certificate system, PKI system is the basis of the world security system.
Without the proper operation of this system - everything falls apart, no one will know if the public keys belong to their owners.
All you have to do is show your public key instead of the original one, and all our secrets are in their pocket - we will encrypt them ourselves and give them to them.

Can you imagine the consequences?

The problem affects VPN gateways, VoIP, almost everything that uses network communications," said MongoDB Security Manager Kenn White.

Key security systems - are no longer secure for us!
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 17, 2020, 08:41:30 AM

I think that phishing will never die as long as there is a password authentication system.

The point is that when you are shown a phishing site, a non-original site, or a phishing email arrives, all your protection is to compare the address, the name of the site, the information you see to the information in your memory.
It works, but very, very badly.
If you haven't noticed the modifications, it's all your fault.

Well, is it fair to rely on your own memory when you're digital?

I think it's a flaw.
We need password-free authentication methods. And these technologies are only two-way. What are we going to get:
1. No possibility of phishing attacks, regardless of our memory.
2. Impossible to compromise you by stealing your password or other identifier.

The point is that passwordless authentication has only a variable identifier. Nobody uses it 2 times, even you yourself.

Here's the news on the subject from January 17.

Experts have warned about a new type of phishing attack.

Perpetrators study the victims' email messages to trick them into going to malicious sites.

Cybercriminals have begun using new phishing techniques to trick employees into installing malware, transferring money or transferring their credentials.

The cybercriminals infiltrate business email channels using previously compromised credentials (acquired in clandestine forums, stolen or obtained through a bloatform) and join a conversation under the guise of one of the groups.
This is an expert opinion from Barracuda Networks.

The idea is that the attacker is exploiting a real identity by conducting phishing attacks on its behalf, which the victim will consider as messages coming from a trusted source.

In an analysis of 500,000 emails, experts found that the interception of correspondence increased by more than 400% between July and November last year.

The experts reported on cases when intruders spent weeks communicating with their alleged victims to ensure a high level of trust.

Details of password-free and keyless methods, here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.0.
chaoscoinz
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 257

 January 17, 2020, 12:04:18 PM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 18, 2020, 11:25:01 AM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
-------------------
This theme, whether there's a quantum hazard or not, is wiped down to the holes.

That's the picture I'm looking at:
- most people in the scientific community understand and explain that the danger is more than real;
- most ordinary people who don't want to get into it, project managers, advertisers, "air salesmen" who aren't used to dealing with complex issues, don't see it as a threat.

We know that there are a lot of encryption systems, totally new systems that can withstand quantum computers even from another galaxy. And in 2022, we will know the winner.

All modern systems except AES will go to the junkyard of history and the debate will stop, just like the threat of quantum computers.

And what will remain?
There will remain the eternal threat of cryptanalysis, theft of keys and passwords, phishing, and other nasty things that no cryptographic system fights against.

These threats, as well as quantum threats, can be counteracted by a new technology of keyless encryption and passwordless authentication based on logic and geometry rather than mathematics.
CarnagexD
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 281

 January 18, 2020, 03:25:59 PM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
There had been no real claims about the existence of quantum computers to date. If there is, we shouldn't even be stuck in this planet, most of the global problems we have right now would've been solved if there is a quantum computer out there. But even if there is, I don't see it big of a threat really, nobody would be able to gain access from a quantum computer unless you're a very important person.

 ▐▌▄██▄▄████▄▄████████▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄▄████████████████████▄▄▀▀██████████████████▀▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀████████▀▀████▀▀██▀▐▌ Betnomi │ 300% █████████████████████   ████   ██DEPOSITBONUS████   ████ ▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄▄██▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██▄█▀▀█▀███████████▀█▀▀██▄▄█▄███████████▄█▄▄█▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▄▀█▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀█▀▄▀█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█▀█▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄█▄▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀▄▀█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█▀█▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄█▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀ .UPTO 20% █████████████████████   ████   ██WEEKLYCASHBACK████   ████ ▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄▄██▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██▄█▀▀█▀███████████▀█▀▀██▄▄█▄███████████▄█▄▄█▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▄▀█▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀█▀▄▀█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█▀█▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄█▄▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀▄▀█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█▀█▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄█▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀ 100% █████████████████████   ████   ██.RAKEBACK.████   ████ │ █▀▀▀▀▀████████████▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀████████████▄▄▄▄▄█
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 18, 2020, 09:32:13 PM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
There had been no real claims about the existence of quantum computers to date. If there is, we shouldn't even be stuck in this planet, most of the global problems we have right now would've been solved if there is a quantum computer out there. But even if there is, I don't see it big of a threat really, nobody would be able to gain access from a quantum computer unless you're a very important person.
---------------
This is fully automatic data collection. It is a program that collects everything and everyone.
It's done by both the government and the crooks.
But the government doesn't want scammers to know more than the government. That's the reason why news like this happens:
On January 14th, the FBI seized the domain WeLeakInfo.com for providing users with paid access to data leaked to the network by hacking. The operation was conducted jointly with the National Crime Agency (NCA), the Netherlands National Police Corps, the German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

"The Web site gave users access to a search engine to view confidential information illegally obtained from more than 10,000 data leaks, including more than 12 billion indexed records, including names, email addresses, logins, phone numbers and passwords," the U.S. Department of Justice reported.

The subscription price ranged from $2 to$75, giving users unlimited access to search engines and data for a limited period of time.

Here's the price of your logins and passwords and more today: from $2 to$75. And this is not the highest price, there is cheaper.

This is reality, open your eyes, 12 billion records, this is all humanity!
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 20, 2020, 11:03:33 PM

But the practical proof of the fact that some devices (in this case all, regardless of the model), some manufacturers, can never be used, under any circumstances, or for any purpose.

The main thing is not to forget, buying another fashionable smartphone, that with its help you can not use your passwords and keys, to access the service associated with your cryptographic assets. This is a spy.

Here is the recent news.
Celebrities in South Korea were subjected to a large-scale extortion campaign, during which criminals hacked into Samsung smartphones belonging to popular film artists, musicians, artists, etc. and demanded a ransom of $43,000 to$860,000, threatening to make their personal data public.

Only recently, in my post of January 15, this company was mentioned, and confirmation of this danger did not wait.

Really, who's responsible for this?
People who have trusted products that are not suitable for anything, in terms of security, or a manufacturer that adheres to its own, not for the purposes it has declared?

In my opinion, we will always be deceived if we trust anyone.  And the most dangerous thing is exactly the delusion that most people have.
Who's listening to the minority?

I don't know who will support me, but practice shows that apart from cheaters, other players are also playing against us, made up as our allies.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 21, 2020, 07:01:31 PM

Let's continue the topic of vulnerability.
We're probably hiding the fact that any modern device is vulnerable, total and inevitable, it's a competition in which we users are inventory.

I argue that there is no point in having modern cryptography if you always have a 100% vulnerability through keys, passwords and other technological rudiments.

Once you have entered a password into such a device, you have lost it, and no matter what, you will never know.

What's more, exploited at a new level, software vulnerabilities that allow you to compromise your system without the user being involved (for example, without the victim clicking on a malicious link) are of great interest to scammers.

The experts from Google Project Zero, who have devoted several recent months to studying this issue, are no exception.
We are watching.
On Thursday, January 9, security researcher Samuel Gross from Google Project Zero demonstrated how Apple ID alone can remotely hack an iPhone, access passwords, messages, emails and activate a camera with a microphone in a matter of minutes.

The researcher described his attack method in three separate articles on the Google Project Zero blog. The first one provides technical details on the vulnerability, the second one on the ASLR hacking method, and the third one explains how to remotely execute code on the device under attack bypassing the sandbox.
"The research was mainly motivated by the following question: is it possible to remotely execute code on an iPhone using the remote memory corruption vulnerability alone without using other vulnerabilities and without any interaction with the user? A series of publications on this blog proves that it is indeed possible," Gross said.

What do you think of the traditional security concept after reading this news?
Dabs
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1451

The Concierge of Crypto

 January 22, 2020, 02:21:07 PM

This is a reply to an earlier post in this thread, but still relevant:

I think the problem is that it has not been proven that no efficient algorithm exists to do prime factorization of large numbers, which is what RSA is all about. ECC might be similar or something else entirely since they use smaller numbers.

Many areas of mathematics and computer science have been brought to bear on the problem, including elliptic curves, algebraic number theory, and quantum computing.

An algorithm that efficiently factors an arbitrary integer would render RSA-based public-key cryptography insecure.

That is probably one reason organizations or governments wouldn't use such a system. It may be cracked with a mathematical break through at some future time.

The problem with vernam class ciphers is distribution of the pad or the keys. If one were to use 256 bit AES and distribute a bunch of keys way in advance to all parties that need it, that would be very close to the effect of a one time pad.

Still, the largest semiprime yet factored is only a 795 bit number, factored in November 2019.

The largest known prime as of January 2020 is more than 24 million digits long.

Before the mid-1970s, all cipher systems were symmetric. Keys were distributed by a secure channel. There are no perfectly secure channels in the real world. There are, at best, only ways to make insecure channels (e.g., couriers, homing pigeons, diplomatic bags, etc.) less insecure: padlocks (between courier wrists and a briefcase), loyalty tests, security investigations, and guns for courier personnel, diplomatic immunity for diplomatic bags, and so forth.

Today, Kerberos exists, and that could be quantum resistant for a long time until a better one has been tried and tested.

What the governments are worried about are any cryptographic breaks that can crack asymmetric encryption faster than brute force. Rubber hose methods work, are cheaper, and that's why it is done.

As for RSA, use 4096 bits. We will know in the news worldwide if and when 1024 and 2048 bits are regularly broken; then we will have plenty of time to migrate to a different system if needed. Much of the internet will get broken otherwise.

As for traditional security, I think it's better than having something completely open. How the new concepts will work are left to be seen if they are any better in practice.

keeee
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 267

" Coindragon.com 30% Cash Back "

 January 22, 2020, 02:52:19 PM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
Really,  i only knew that one from you.  If that was reslly then it would be amazing somehow because we dont need to worry more.  Base on my research most people really dont know if encryotion will last or not because no one controls it.

 Get 30% of your coins backwith our cashback campaign ( ) ◆ Own games ◆ Provably fair ◆ Super fast ◆ Mobile first
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 23, 2020, 04:04:26 PM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
Really,  i only knew that one from you.  If that was reslly then it would be amazing somehow because we dont need to worry more.  Base on my research most people really dont know if encryotion will last or not because no one controls it.
-----------------
Information about the existence and use of working quantum computers - can not be publicly available, because in the world there is a global information confrontation, cyberwar.
And like any war, there are secrets, secret developments.
Why do we always expect to be told everything, informed?
No, of course not.
Here's an example that confirms my speculation:
"Speculation on the subject intensified when NASA published a document on the site, but soon deleted (a copy available to ForkLog) a document with insider information about Google's success in the direction of the existence of a working model of a quantum computer and the company's achievement of "quantum superiority". In the media, the information was replicated by the authoritative British publication The Financial Times.

And it's still unclear why cryptography was separated:
- one cryptography for all of us;

Commercial cryptography must be based on the same standards around the world.
But state standards for cryptography are much better, they cannot be distributed anywhere, they will only be used within state structures.

And despite the high level of protection of state cryptography, they must be updated every five years (at the algorithmic level).

Then it is even more interesting.

Commercial structures should not have access to this algorithm itself. Thus, it will be possible to apply simultaneously public "commercial" algorithms - for us, simple and naive, and completely different algorithms for the chosen ones.

Of course, skeptics will immediately argue that state secrets are very serious, so the cryptography is different.

My answer to this is this: why, then, at the NIST open competition, which is held on the post quantum encryption systems, starting from 2015, are not accepted systems based on the same principles as modern RSA and ECC?

1. There was no direct threat from quantum computers back then.
2. Even then (2015) leading experts in cryptography warned that no key length would save modern commercial systems if at least one was cracked. This is a hidden explanation of the fact that these systems are afraid not of Shore algorithms, which only simplify the complete search for the key, but the achievements of cryptanalysis.
3. Why all ECC patents from Koblitz and Menezes, previously purchased by the NSA, were forgotten without explanation when the results of research by UK mathematicians became known in 2016. This study was ordered by the NSA itself.

Koblitz and Menezes have every reason to consider themselves competent in the field of cryptography on elliptic curves, but they did not hear absolutely anything about new hacking methods that compromised "their" crypto scheme. So everything that happens around ECC amazed mathematicians extremely.
People who have close contacts with this industry know that large corporations that provide cryptographic tasks and equipment for the US government always get some kind of advance warning about changing plans. But in this case there was nothing of the kind.

Even more unexpected was the fact that no one from the NSA addressed the people from NIST (USA), who are responsible for the open cryptographic standards of the state.

The ETSI/IQC International Symposium on Quantum Secure Cryptography (in 2016), from which this story began, has several notable features.
Firstly, it was very solidly represented by the heads of important structures, special services of Great Britain, Canada, Germany. All these national special services are analogues of the American NSA. However, absolutely no one was mentioned explicitly from the NSA. And this, of course, is not an accident.

This event is interesting for the reason that there was a highly unusual report on behalf of the secret British secret service GCHQ (P. Campbell, M. Groves, D. Shepherd, "Soliloquy: A Cautionary Tale"). This is a report from the CESG information security division, which was personally made by Michael Groves, who leads cryptographic research at this intelligence agency.

It must be emphasized here that it is completely uncharacteristic for people from the British special services to talk about their secret developments at open conferences. However, this case was truly exceptional.

The story of the great cryptographer CESG speaking at the public symposium was extremely sparsely covered in the media, and the slides of articles and presentations about Soliloquide can only be found on the Web for those who know very clearly what they are looking for (on the ETSI website, where these files are exclusively found, there are no direct links to them).

Details can be found here, second post dated December 04:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.40.

For these reasons, we conclude that there may be both unknown quantum devices and a secret mathematical apparatus that unambiguously compromises all modern commercial asymmetric cryptography.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 24, 2020, 05:47:26 PM

From all the above, we can conclude that humanity lives by faith.
Modern cryptography is not an exception, but a confirmation of this rule.
The concept of encryption will live exactly as long as the absolute majority will trust this assumption.
It should be noted that the absolute majority of people do not understand anything about the problematic issues of modern cryptography and will never understand.
That's the way a person works. If he does not understand something, he does not try to understand it, but looks at people around him, who do not understand it as well as he does. And the herd feeling, the instincts, conquers everything else.
If someone separates himself from the herd and starts doing things differently from the majority, has his own opinion, he will be branded as he wants, no one will go into unpopular discussions about generally accepted things.

Long live modern cryptography, human delusions and herd mentality. In this religious atmosphere of trust, there is no place for reason.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 26, 2020, 09:15:08 PM

This is a reply to an earlier post in this thread, but still relevant:

The problem with vernam class ciphers is distribution of the pad or the keys. If one were to use 256 bit AES and distribute a bunch of keys way in advance to all parties that need it, that would be very close to the effect of a one time pad.

-----------
The reliability of a cryptographic system is determined by the reliability of its keys.
It makes no sense to use AES-256 (or a longer key length) to transfer keys - disposable notebooks, because the key length is equal to the length of the message, and Vernam's encryption reliability will drop to AES reliability.

The problem of generating disposable notebooks is solved by the technologies mentioned in my previous posts. It makes no sense to transfer a disposable notebook using any, even a post (double post) cryptography. If you want to make the most secure of all possible ciphers - the Vernam cipher - then your keys should never and never be transmitted, not even through the channels of quantum cryptography (solving the problem of common key coordination for a symmetric encryption system). It is connected with that fact, quantum communication is communication with the big errors, on small distances, and the quantum channel is easily muffled by hindrances. besides, it supposes up to 11 % of information leakage. It's a huge drop in reliability relative to Vernam's cipher.

How to create identical disposable notebooks symmetrically, without necessity of their transfer on communication channels, to create Vernam's cipher, it is solved in technology of keyless ciphering and password-free authentication, in a variant of vector-geometrical model which author I am. We can talk about this topic in detail.
jameshugo17
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 100

 January 26, 2020, 10:39:17 PM

Quantum computers will be integrated into the blockchain system. In this case, the existing encryption may change. Because enormous processing powers or super-superchargers may require the system to change. The most important thing for Bitcoin is encryption and speed.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 27, 2020, 09:50:21 AM

Quantum computers will be integrated into the blockchain system. In this case, the existing encryption may change. Because enormous processing powers or super-superchargers may require the system to change. The most important thing for Bitcoin is encryption and speed.
What does it mean to introduce quantum computers into a locking system?
As for encryption, I agree, encryption will change. But the existing encryption can only change to some post quantum public key cryptographic system.
The fact is, all post quantum systems require more computing resources than the existing elliptic encryption.
That's why I don't understand how I can increase the speed. After all, today if you buy a cup of coffee for bitcoin, it will become cold while the calculation is done.
How can I increase the speed in the future?
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 January 27, 2020, 07:53:42 PM

This is a reply to an earlier post in this thread, but still relevant:

Still, the largest semiprime yet factored is only a 795 bit number, factored in November 2019.

The largest known prime as of January 2020 is more than 24 million digits long.
You've noticed correctly that this is the most famous example. What I don't like here, or rather a security concern:
1. And what examples do we not know?  What have mathematicians found, whose names do not appear in public publications?
2. it's a crude attack on 795 bit number, it's a crude force, it's not as effective as cryptanalysis as mathematical solutions, because in the schemes with public and private keys of the whole set of numbers, only prime numbers are involved in the encryption scheme.

If I concealed information that there are mathematical solutions to the problem of factoring and discrete logarithmization, I would contribute in every possible way to the spread of such information.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 February 07, 2020, 10:34:16 PM

Here's another, another example, confirming the failure of modern security systems based on key and password cryptographic protocols.
Obviously, for modern cryptography, including post quantum cryptography, the fact of having a key will level out any cryptography. Fraudsters always scream the keys, not crack the encryption.
We study the news carefully:
-
Officers of the Cyber Police Department of the National Police of Ukraine identified a 25-year-old local resident who had broken into and emptied crypt currency wallets.
Crypt wallets, not any others!
According to the press service of the Cyberpolice, the man was a participant in closed forums where he bought logins and passwords from crypt wallets. In addition, he purchased and modified malware to gain unauthorized access to protected logical systems of protection of Internet resources. With its help, the attacker gained access to accounts on crypt-currency exchanges and withdrew funds.

This is the price for key protection systems - a paradise for scammers, and a fiction for users.

Here's a confirmation:

- During the search of the residence of the case, a laptop, a mobile phone and a computer were seized. A preliminary inspection of the equipment revealed that it contained malware and confidential data related to electronic payment systems, e-mail passwords and keys to cryptocurrency wallets.

Clearly, keyless encryption systems and passwordless authentication, if created, would be more secure than today's.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 February 09, 2020, 11:04:51 PM

I read earlier today that it would take approximately 2,500 qubits of quantum processing power to successfully break the encryption of an SHA-256 private key.

Since Google only has a 72 qubit Q-computer, and it has taken a decade to reach this point, then a 2,500 qubit quantum processor appears to be approximately 7 years away.

With that said, this will still likely be a super specific system, so I doubt it would actually be used to identify the links between public and private keys.

If that is the case, I highly doubt it would be possible, because algorithms run by quantum computers are totally different, if they tend to break the encryption of bitcoin, they need to use the same algorithm that classical computers use, but with a bigger processing power, but who knows about it, I highly believe that even before a 2,500 qubits of quantum computing power would be invented, quantum computers do already generate a whole new set of encryption that will make it harder for quantum computers itself to break.
---
Quantum computers cannot generate new encryption.
It is just a tool in human hands, not smart machines that can encrypt better than classic, ordinary, modern computers.
But they can decrypt, crack and do cryptoanalysis. Well, at the very least, they can do the whole thing, the brute force attack.
A new encryption, which should be absolutely stable against quantum computers, is now being generated by the best minds of mankind. And new encryption technologies will only work on ordinary computers, on our consumer digital devices.
But the problems of stealing encryption keys, the vulnerabilities that are exploited today, will also be relevant for all new postquantum encryption technologies without exception.
The only global method that eliminates these flaws is the keyless encryption technology that may emerge in the near future.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 March 09, 2020, 10:37:42 AM

Nobody really knows for sure, but there is one thing you can be sure of, there are quantum computers out there right now as we speak. The ones that we definitely know of are D-wave systems quantum computers, which are commercially available and has several big name clients who have purchased a computer from them. There's really nothing to worry about as far as quantum computers go because they are an infant technology and are limited to specific functions on;y, but the real trouble starts when they gain more general function, that's when you arrive at the realization that the existing encryption is on it's way out the door, old news, good bye.
Really,  i only knew that one from you.  If that was reslly then it would be amazing somehow because we dont need to worry more.  Base on my research most people really dont know if encryotion will last or not because no one controls it.
--------------------------
The existing encryption is not under anyone's control.
There is a general consensus, there is certification, there is advertising, it is enough for everyone to be vigilant.
This is used by large companies using their authority to produce products based on publicly available encryption libraries.
Small companies mistakenly think that what big companies have done is 100% correct and they do the same.
And so the whole world is connected by a chain of authoritative opinions, a pyramid from one "guru" to all ordinary pipels.
This is a system of general trust, on which the security for ordinary users is built.
Very few brave people who understand themselves, make their own conclusions, come to the essence, but make mistakes themselves.

It's good to be able to dig that deep.
And if you're not, if you don't even have time for it, what do you do?
I'm trying to find the answer to that question.

In my opinion, the only thing left to us who have not studied cryptography is to draw conclusions by getting indirect information, namely:
- why is there domestic cryptography and government cryptography?
- why in household cryptography the system of encryption at the level of algorithms is not updated, and in government cryptography it is obligatory?
- why are they so stubbornly searching for replacements for existing systems rather than just increasing the length of the key?

And here's another thing that can happen to those who believe in this general trust system:
- the Swiss government has filed a complaint in a criminal case against the CIA for using a Swiss supplier of encryption equipment to intercept communications from 120 governments over 50 years. The encryption products supplied by Crypto AG contained backdoors allowing the US and German intelligence agencies to easily read encrypted correspondence.

The security system, built on trust, which now exists in the world, seems to have collapsed completely.

Key-based encryption systems will never provide security for the average client, the average user, because it is the keys that will be stolen, this is the easiest way, because encryption algorithms are known and established as a constant.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 March 15, 2020, 09:22:32 AM

The modern protection system is a modern protocol, a set of instructions on the technologies underlying these protocols.
The main technology underlying the security systems is cryptography.
Cryptography, any system, is built on the methods of using the key, which is used as the instruction needed to configure individual (for this key) encryption algorithms.
Therefore, any protocol based on modern cryptography will always ask you for the key, password, biometric identifiers, which are essentially the same password, password-constant, it cannot be changed.

As soon as you build a system that has a weak link in its foundation - a password or key, so prepare yourself immediately for the fact that scammers will not break you in the forehead, they will look for access to keys and passwords.

Modern cyber crime research, their statistics, reports from companies dealing with this issue, even a Microsoft report - all this clearly shows that keys and passwords are almost always stolen.

Any security system, the most sophisticated and modern, even postquantum ones, if based on passwords or keys, will have a vulnerability in this very weakest link - the key (password).

Only keyless encryption systems will allow to build more reliable security systems.

In password authentication systems - there are passwords, there are digital identifiers. 2FA is a way to combine your permanent digital identifier (e.g. password) and a variable (e.g. code in the SMS that is not repeated anymore). The essence has not changed, the response time of the cheater has changed and the complexity of the attack.

Today, the most reliable system 2FA - is no longer reliable.

Any 2FA - easy to break, especially if the second factor is your smartphone! SMS - much easier to intercept than to find out your master password.

You need the next step, 3FA, 4FA ... - playing cat mouse, not solving the authentication problem.
Only passwordless authentication, real authentification without a password, not a temporary password like 2FA is the solution.

For those who trust 2FA, this is the material:

1. scammers have learned to intercept SMS with security codes sent by banks and withdraw all the money that is on the card. Not so long ago this way in Germany cybercriminals pulled off a major operation to steal money from credit cards of hapless users.
It should be noted that 2FA via SMS has already been officially recognized as an insecure authentication method due to unrecoverable vulnerabilities in Signaling System 7 (SS7), which is used by mobile networks to communicate with each other.
A few years ago Positive Technologies specialists showed how SMS is intercepted.

2. In fact, the assumption of inconvenience (and insecurity) was confirmed by Grzegorz Milka, the same speaker from Google. The Register journalists asked him why Google will not enable two-factor authentication by default for all accounts? The answer was usability. "It's about how many users will leave if we force them to use additional security."

3. Even before I started studying IT security science, I thought 2FA authentication was a guaranteed way to secure my account and no "these hackers of yours" could, say, steal my internal currency to buy... on your account. But over time, it has been proven by experience that a two factor authentication system can have many vulnerabilities. The code authentication system is very common, used everywhere on various sites and can connect for both primary and secondary login.

4. - bypass rate-limit by changing the IP address...
Many blockages are based on the restriction of receiving requests from IP, which has reached the threshold of a certain number of attempts to make a request. If you change the IP address, you can bypass this restriction. To test this method, simply change your IP using Proxy Server/VPN and you will see if the blocking depends on the IP.

5. - Bypass 2ph by spoofing part of the request from a session of another account...
If a parameter with a specific value is sent to verify the code in the request, try sending the value from another account's request. For example, when sending an OTP code, it verifies the form ID, user ID or cookie that is associated with sending the code. If we apply the data from the account settings where we need to bypass the code-verification (Account 1) to a session of a completely different account (Account 2), get the code and enter it on the second account, we can bypass protection on the first account. After rebooting the 2FA page should disappear. This is like another example.

6. - bypassing 2FA with the "memorization function"...
Many sites that support 2FA authorization have "remember me" functionality. This is useful if the user does not want to enter the 2FA code when logging into the account later. It is important to identify the way that 2FA is "remembered". This can be a cookie, a session/local storage value, or simply attaching 2FA to an IP address.

7. - insufficient censorship of personal data on page 2FA...
When sending an OTP code on a page, censorship is used to protect personal data such as email, phone number, nickname, etc. But this data can be fully disclosed in endpoint APIs and other requests for which we have sufficient rights during the 2FA phase. If this data was not originally known, for example we entered only the login without knowing the phone number, this is considered an "Information Disclosure" vulnerability. Knowing the phone number/email number can be used for subsequent phishing and brute force attacks.

8. - Impact of one of the reports:
Linking to other vulnerabilities, such as the previously sent OAuth misconfiguration #577468, to fully capture the account, overcoming 2FA.
If an attacker has hijacked a user's email, they can try to regain access to the social network account and log on to the account without further verification.
If the attacker once hacked into the victim's account, the attacker can link the social network to the account and log into the account in the future, completely ignoring 2FA and login/password entry.

9. - Everybody is so confident in the reliability of 2FA that they use it for the most demanding operations - from Google authorization (which is instant access to mail, disk, contacts and all the history stored in the cloud) to client-bank systems.

The ability to bypass such a system has already been demonstrated by the Australian researcher Shubham Shah.

In early 2019, Polish researcher Piotr Duszyński made Modlishka reverse proxy available to the public. According to him, this tool can bypass two-factor authentication...

10. - A security breach was discovered by the leading hacker at KnowBe4, Kevin Mitnick. The new exploit allows you to bypass protection with two-factor authentication (2FA). An attacker can direct a user to a fake authentication page, thus gaining access to the login, password, and cookie session.

11. - The "ethical hacker" Kuba Gretzky developed the evilginx tool to bypass two-factor authentication. The system uses social engineering principles, and can be directed against any site.

12. - Two-factor authentication mechanisms are not reliable enough. Shortcomings in the implementation of such mechanisms are found in 77% of online banks.

13. Nothing new, the issue of hacking into the 2FA mechanism was commented by Pavel Durov himself.  The mechanism is simple, here it is:

1. Interception of SMS by various means.

2. Login to your account on a new device or web version of Telegram.

3. Resets two-factor authentication via tied mail.

4. Mail is "opened" by receiving the same sms through the "Forgot Password" button (you will be lucky if the numbers do not match).

5. We enter the mail and enter the code in Telegram.

6. We open all chats, groups and not remote correspondence, except for secret chat rooms (green chat rooms with a lock).

So what are we doing?
We're waiting for 3FA, 4FA... PFA or looking for technology, options for new password-free authentication methods?
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 March 26, 2020, 10:34:05 AM

In addition, we can say that the interfaces of programs that attack two-factor authentication are very much simplified. They are getting bigger and bigger and more accessible.
Be vigilant, especially if you are using this obsolete mechanism.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 April 12, 2020, 08:45:46 AM

Cloud vaults break like nuts.
Who needs this protection if the cryptography on the keys is only opened with the key, no matter who brought the key?
Here are the consequences, according to court documents published by the NSO Group, Facebook intended to purchase Pegasus, a spyware product capable of extracting user data from Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft cloud storage. The data is being exported, giving software operators access to confidential user data. The data collected includes... that's where three dots are best, because there's not much to steal, there's enough keys and passwords. The rest is that you've already put everything in the box that's already got the key.

The danger of modern cryptography on keys is that it gives an imaginary security, you feel free, and then the vase is cracked, all your secrets and private data.

Key cryptography as well as password authentication are the rudiments of the 20th century, temporarily living in the 21st century.
elenag742
Newbie

Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0

 April 20, 2020, 03:36:46 AM

Current encryption innovation goes to be less steady than we recently anticipated.

Bitcoin encryption and personal keys are going to be unprotected by 30.

In any case, just significant activities chipping away at it'll accomplish this accomplishment and expectation that none of them will ever assault Bitcoin.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 April 23, 2020, 09:10:39 AM

Current encryption innovation goes to be less steady than we recently anticipated.

Bitcoin encryption and personal keys are going to be unprotected by 30.

In any case, just significant activities chipping away at it'll accomplish this accomplishment and expectation that none of them will ever assault Bitcoin.

--------------------------------------
Nobody really knows when it's time for the Bitcoins to be completely vulnerable. Everyone here has different opinions.
I agree with those who are in a hurry, who want to speed up the transition of block-chain technology to more robust encryption algorithms.
But the key problem will never be solved in the future and will be just as dangerous as it is today - because of the possibility of compromising it.
As long as the encryption used by the user has the same key for all the information that the user encrypts, there will be a danger that not only the key will be stolen, but also cryptanalysis.

For these reasons, I don't think it makes much sense to implement more robust cryptography and leave the keys as a necessary encryption component.

Scammers don't break cryptography, they steal keys.

And a normal person, always wonders how to do that?
But statistics on cybercrime clearly show what can and isn't as difficult as we might think.
Yes, and most importantly, the keys cannot be stored in human memory, we have to trust the devices, and this is a vulnerability.

The only radical solution to the key problem is their absence. There is keyless encryption technology. Essentially, it is a technology that encrypts every little piece of information - with different encryption schemes, as if it were similar - encrypting every little piece of information - with new keys that are not passed from user to user, are not stored anywhere, and any new encryption rule (as if a new key) cannot be calculated from the old encryption rule (as if the old key) knowing only the encryption and the old encryption rule (old key).
This is the new technological solution to the key problem.
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 June 07, 2020, 09:27:56 AM

The number of attacks is constantly growing, the main vector of which is theft of keys and passwords. All over the world, confidential user data, including keys, passwords and user IDs, are fraudulently transferred or banally sold. It is possible to attack through keys and passwords quietly, crushingly, for a very long time, imperceptibly. What are the consequences of these crimes? Why is the statistics of this type of cybercrime steadily growing?
The root of our protection is so weak that there are ready-made programs in free access for stealing private information and selling complex package solutions, which can be used even by an inexperienced cheater. The resource that dedicates humanity to fighting cybercrime is steadily growing, but we have not seen adequate positive results.
The conclusion is obvious - the modern security system available to an ordinary user does not cope with its tasks and probably can only protect us from the same ordinary user, the user, but not a trained attacker.
Perhaps this is done intentionally, a real race of cyber weapons is unleashed. Perhaps some people are comfortable living in such a translucent digital world? Who knows? Who knows, is silent..
Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 August 11, 2020, 05:56:05 AM

The Office of Advanced Research Projects of the U.S. Department of Defense (DARPA) has signed a contract with ColdQuanta to create a new quantum computer.
As we were informed, the construction of a quantum computer for 1000 cubic meters will be possible in the next 40 months.

According to Bo Ewald, CEO of ColdQuanta, within the next 40 months, under the terms of this contract, a machine will be created which will consist of 1000 (one thousand!!!!) cubic meters, and it will be able to make the necessary calculations ... to create the drugs and... (it's not interesting and probably not true that it will be used for this) - and to break the ciphers.

All this suggests that users of today's asymmetric key cryptography have less and less time left. I don't think 1000 kbit will be able to crack a key longer than 2000 bits, but I think 10,000 kbit will appear after a 1000 kbit quantum computer. That's the problem.
In 40 months, the era of quantum cryptography for a strong world and keyless encryption for ordinary people will begin.
If there is much talk about quantum cryptography, then keyless encryption methods are considered fiction and not worthy of public attention.

Full Member

Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 174

 August 11, 2020, 12:15:06 PM

The Office of Advanced Research Projects of the U.S. Department of Defense (DARPA) has signed a contract with ColdQuanta to create a new quantum computer.
As we were informed, the construction of a quantum computer for 1000 cubic meters will be possible in the next 40 months.

According to Bo Ewald, CEO of ColdQuanta, within the next 40 months, under the terms of this contract, a machine will be created which will consist of 1000 (one thousand!!!!) cubic meters, and it will be able to make the necessary calculations ... to create the drugs and... (it's not interesting and probably not true that it will be used for this) - and to break the ciphers.

All this suggests that users of today's asymmetric key cryptography have less and less time left. I don't think 1000 kbit will be able to crack a key longer than 2000 bits, but I think 10,000 kbit will appear after a 1000 kbit quantum computer. That's the problem.
In 40 months, the era of quantum cryptography for a strong world and keyless encryption for ordinary people will begin.
If there is much talk about quantum cryptography, then keyless encryption methods are considered fiction and not worthy of public attention.

Is it really possible to have that kind of computers that could do so much cryptography? Really our world now are going through so much in computerization and it will be a matter of fact when all of the advance technology will become more advance. We had already seen heart transplant in medical and there is also a study about head transplant. I do not know if it was being successful but it is indeed true that a certain man who is sick and had having hard time on his condition made him decide to volunteer for the said experiment.

Computerization is really great and hoping that it will be apply to do things for comfort and not just creating it by the purpose of doing evil things.

Voland.V
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 118

 August 13, 2020, 06:58:42 AM

The Office of Advanced Research Projects of the U.S. Department of Defense (DARPA) has signed a contract with ColdQuanta to create a new quantum computer.
As we were informed, the construction of a quantum computer for 1000 cubic meters will be possible in the next 40 months.

According to Bo Ewald, CEO of ColdQuanta, within the next 40 months, under the terms of this contract, a machine will be created which will consist of 1000 (one thousand!!!!) cubic meters, and it will be able to make the necessary calculations ... to create the drugs and... (it's not interesting and probably not true that it will be used for this) - and to break the ciphers.

All this suggests that users of today's asymmetric key cryptography have less and less time left. I don't think 1000 kbit will be able to crack a key longer than 2000 bits, but I think 10,000 kbit will appear after a 1000 kbit quantum computer. That's the problem.
In 40 months, the era of quantum cryptography for a strong world and keyless encryption for ordinary people will begin.
If there is much talk about quantum cryptography, then keyless encryption methods are considered fiction and not worthy of public attention.

Is it really possible to have that kind of computers that could do so much cryptography? Really our world now are going through so much in computerization and it will be a matter of fact when all of the advance technology will become more advance. We had already seen heart transplant in medical and there is also a study about head transplant. I do not know if it was being successful but it is indeed true that a certain man who is sick and had having hard time on his condition made him decide to volunteer for the said experiment.

Computerization is really great and hoping that it will be apply to do things for comfort and not just creating it by the purpose of doing evil things.

-------------------
In fact, no matter how much computing power a person invents, no matter how fast the computer that will be used to break cryptography, this battle will always be won by cryptographers, because mathematics is endless now, it can work with any numbers. And technologies are always finite for the present moment in time, so they are always limited in their capabilities.
I pay attention to modern cryptography, and raise the topic of its long or short life, precisely from the point of view of the availability and use of keys for encryption. No matter how perfect cryptography is, the presence of a key always instantly weakens it to zero in the event of an attack. All modern attacks are attacks to steal keys and passwords. And not a single attack from fraudsters - not on cryptography.
All talk about the threat of quantum computing is a false trail.
All conversations should be about how to protect the user from theft of keys, passwords, phishing.
It is this vector - no one discusses or, in the best case, offers "password managers" or two-factor authentication. And that and that way is a utopia, and cyber defenders pumping money out of users. This is their way of being and, moreover, forever. They do not offer a solution to the problem at the root, but polish an outdated mechanism.
I suggest looking the other way.
We need cryptography without a key and authentication without a password, and this means the main thing - without any permanent, long-assigned digital identifier.

Although many of my posts were deleted by the administrator, something remained here, this is the topic I'm trying to discuss there:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204368.60
 Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [All]