|
Mr Chips posted:Can you explain the mathematics for the first bit for everyone else who's interested in understanding why? As for why it's a problem, the security of RSA relies on it being "slow" and "difficult" for computers to factor composite numbers into their prime factors. But while computers are "slow" at doing that, they're still able to do it pretty well for numbers of sizes that we can comprehend. Eight-digit RSA keys are effectively trivial to factor. Back in the 90s, RSA-768 keys with 232 digits (116 digit prime factors) were considered secure. But an RSA-768 key was factored in 2009 and at some point (if not already) they will be factorable by folks with sufficient funding (governments, etc.). RSA-1024 (~300 digit keys) is still considered secure, but uncomfortable, with RSA-2048 (~600 digit keys) being recommended (to the extent folks still recommend RSA). Wolfram MathWorld has a page on RSA Numbers, discussing different key sizes and when the RSA Factoring Challenge keys were broken.
|
# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 17:22 |
|
|
# ¿ May 3, 2024 13:37 |
|
Harik posted:Do they have a justification for it, or is it just "Someone tried to be clever and now we need to be backwards compatible"? Couldn't they store the additional metadata in extended attributes? Or do they need to be FAT compatible for USB sticks? Edit: Oh, Dropbox. Why do they care about the exact file size again? ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 28, 2016 |
# ¿ Dec 28, 2016 16:58 |
|
Wasn't this basically the consensus when Windows Defender came out ten years ago?
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 14:54 |
|
Kazinsal posted:A buddy of mine used to distribute a PDF of their resume that was also an ISO of their hobby operating system that, upon booting, would open a PDF viewer with their resume in it.
|
# ¿ Feb 17, 2022 15:10 |
|
CommieGIR posted:As you said, they exist to make money. By companies who already have exploitive practices. Why would this be different? Just taking reserved instances as an example, it can both be cheaper for the customer and generate greater profit for Amazon than on-demand EC2 pricing, because it enables Amazon to provision less overhead capacity since they have a more accurate usage forecast. There's also a fundamental resource limitation problem. Amazon can built out datacenters quickly, but not as quickly as folks might need to scale out their instances. Pricing goes up when there's a resource crunch, so it's to everyone's benefit to utilize their services more efficiently.
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2022 20:47 |