Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by p1mrx 2652 days ago
Why do you assume that an attack would take 1 year, and not (e.g.) a billion years? A factor of two is only interesting if the number you're dividing was interesting in the first place.
1 comments

imagine is hardly assuming. But it doesn't have to be exactly 1 year, any attack that takes longer but less than 2x average certificate lifetime with 64bit serial numbers (useless) becomes practical on 63bit serial numbers (useful, for a strange meaning of useful).
Such an attack doesn't exist.

Any such attack would also become feasible with twice the budget.

> Such an attack doesn't exist.

As far as we know.

> Any such attack would also become feasible with twice the budget.

Assuming that the attack yields to parallel computing and scales linearly with more cpu/cores, because linear programming is bound to current compute capabilities and then theoretical limits like Bremermann's limit and Margolus–Levitin theorem.

Yeah, assuming these true things.
Assuming the parallelism of an algorithm that you know nothing about is beyond foolish.
Right, which is why we know things about the algorithm.