<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_2141226</id>
	<title>New AES Attack Documented</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246441800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>avxo writes <i>"Bruce Schneier covers a new <a href="https://cryptolux.uni.lu/mediawiki/uploads/1/1a/Aes-192-256.pdf">cryptanalytic related-key attack</a> on AES that is <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new\_attack\_on\_a.html">better than brute force with a complexity of 2^119</a>. According to an e-mail by the authors: 'We also expect that a careful analysis may reduce the complexities. As a preliminary result, we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2^119 to about 2^110.5 data and time. We believe that these results may shed a new light on the design of the key-schedules of block ciphers, but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>avxo writes " Bruce Schneier covers a new cryptanalytic related-key attack on AES that is better than brute force with a complexity of 2 ^ 119 .
According to an e-mail by the authors : 'We also expect that a careful analysis may reduce the complexities .
As a preliminary result , we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2 ^ 119 to about 2 ^ 110.5 data and time .
We believe that these results may shed a new light on the design of the key-schedules of block ciphers , but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>avxo writes "Bruce Schneier covers a new cryptanalytic related-key attack on AES that is better than brute force with a complexity of 2^119.
According to an e-mail by the authors: 'We also expect that a careful analysis may reduce the complexities.
As a preliminary result, we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2^119 to about 2^110.5 data and time.
We believe that these results may shed a new light on the design of the key-schedules of block ciphers, but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551003</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bull.</p><p>a) AES is not based on prime numbers, nor is it a public-key cipher. you're thinking RSA or some other public-key cipher. Hence why RSA has to be at least 1024 (and now 2048 and up is recommended) bits long.</p><p>b) There's a lot more bull going around here. AES256 was believed to require 2^128 operations to bruteforce, not 2^256. Thus any question of 256 -&gt; 119 is bull. It's 128 -&gt; 119.</p><p>c) Brute-forcing a 64bit RC5 key took distributed.net years (and note that that was with the benefit of Moore's [so called] Law). Mind you, that actually required searching a 64bit keyspace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bull.a ) AES is not based on prime numbers , nor is it a public-key cipher .
you 're thinking RSA or some other public-key cipher .
Hence why RSA has to be at least 1024 ( and now 2048 and up is recommended ) bits long.b ) There 's a lot more bull going around here .
AES256 was believed to require 2 ^ 128 operations to bruteforce , not 2 ^ 256 .
Thus any question of 256 - &gt; 119 is bull .
It 's 128 - &gt; 119.c ) Brute-forcing a 64bit RC5 key took distributed.net years ( and note that that was with the benefit of Moore 's [ so called ] Law ) .
Mind you , that actually required searching a 64bit keyspace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bull.a) AES is not based on prime numbers, nor is it a public-key cipher.
you're thinking RSA or some other public-key cipher.
Hence why RSA has to be at least 1024 (and now 2048 and up is recommended) bits long.b) There's a lot more bull going around here.
AES256 was believed to require 2^128 operations to bruteforce, not 2^256.
Thus any question of 256 -&gt; 119 is bull.
It's 128 -&gt; 119.c) Brute-forcing a 64bit RC5 key took distributed.net years (and note that that was with the benefit of Moore's [so called] Law).
Mind you, that actually required searching a 64bit keyspace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558067</id>
	<title>Re:Furthers my stand on crypto, which is: DON'T</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1246551000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Actually, it is all about WHEN.
</p><p>
Good crypto can withstand any conceivable attack until the heat death of the Universe.
</p><p>
Really good crypto does that until the computer you're using to crack it disintegrate from proton decay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is all about WHEN .
Good crypto can withstand any conceivable attack until the heat death of the Universe .
Really good crypto does that until the computer you 're using to crack it disintegrate from proton decay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Actually, it is all about WHEN.
Good crypto can withstand any conceivable attack until the heat death of the Universe.
Really good crypto does that until the computer you're using to crack it disintegrate from proton decay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551921</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not familiar with the term "complexity" being used in this context and with these specific numbers.</p></div><p>Because it's not a problem that scales with n, it's an attack on one particular value of n. Ideally brute forcing an n-bit cipher has complexity O(2^n). For 256 bit AES, they've found an attack that instead of the ideal 2^256 attempts takes 2^119 attempts. But you can't say O(2^119) because that is equal to O(1), and any function with n would be false since it doesn't apply to other n. I guess you could say an attack with "complexity O(2^(n*119/256) for n=256" but you're likely to confuse a hundred times as many as are enlightened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with the term " complexity " being used in this context and with these specific numbers.Because it 's not a problem that scales with n , it 's an attack on one particular value of n. Ideally brute forcing an n-bit cipher has complexity O ( 2 ^ n ) .
For 256 bit AES , they 've found an attack that instead of the ideal 2 ^ 256 attempts takes 2 ^ 119 attempts .
But you ca n't say O ( 2 ^ 119 ) because that is equal to O ( 1 ) , and any function with n would be false since it does n't apply to other n. I guess you could say an attack with " complexity O ( 2 ^ ( n * 119/256 ) for n = 256 " but you 're likely to confuse a hundred times as many as are enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with the term "complexity" being used in this context and with these specific numbers.Because it's not a problem that scales with n, it's an attack on one particular value of n. Ideally brute forcing an n-bit cipher has complexity O(2^n).
For 256 bit AES, they've found an attack that instead of the ideal 2^256 attempts takes 2^119 attempts.
But you can't say O(2^119) because that is equal to O(1), and any function with n would be false since it doesn't apply to other n. I guess you could say an attack with "complexity O(2^(n*119/256) for n=256" but you're likely to confuse a hundred times as many as are enlightened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554065</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html" title="valerieaurora.org">http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html</a> [valerieaurora.org]<br>Pay special attention to the reaction of the "slashdotter" to "minor weakness found", and compare it to your reaction.<br>Remember, attacks always gets better, never worse. The first attack that weakens an algorithm *is* a big deal.</p><p>Oh, and reducing complexity from 2^128 to 2^110 isn't as it may appear a reduction of 10\% in time-to-break, infact it's a reduction of 2^18 or about a factor of a million, so it's more like if before it took a million years, now it takes ONE year. Luckily for you, AES256 was at a lot more than a million years before the break, so there's still some air left in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //valerieaurora.org/hash.html [ valerieaurora.org ] Pay special attention to the reaction of the " slashdotter " to " minor weakness found " , and compare it to your reaction.Remember , attacks always gets better , never worse .
The first attack that weakens an algorithm * is * a big deal.Oh , and reducing complexity from 2 ^ 128 to 2 ^ 110 is n't as it may appear a reduction of 10 \ % in time-to-break , infact it 's a reduction of 2 ^ 18 or about a factor of a million , so it 's more like if before it took a million years , now it takes ONE year .
Luckily for you , AES256 was at a lot more than a million years before the break , so there 's still some air left in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html [valerieaurora.org]Pay special attention to the reaction of the "slashdotter" to "minor weakness found", and compare it to your reaction.Remember, attacks always gets better, never worse.
The first attack that weakens an algorithm *is* a big deal.Oh, and reducing complexity from 2^128 to 2^110 isn't as it may appear a reduction of 10\% in time-to-break, infact it's a reduction of 2^18 or about a factor of a million, so it's more like if before it took a million years, now it takes ONE year.
Luckily for you, AES256 was at a lot more than a million years before the break, so there's still some air left in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552863</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>Tycho</author>
	<datestamp>1246459380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2^40 would take very little time on a home PC, an afternoon or maybe a day.</p><p>40 bits is also the size of the keyspace used by HDCP for HDMI and DVI, for "encrypted" HD displays.  I don't feel like doing the math, but determining all of the 40-bit keys used in HDCP could probably be done in a short time on a reasonable home PC, using a man in the middle attack.  However, for copying HD video, one would still probably get better quality by showing Macrovision, the MPAA, and the Blu-Ray consortium that using BD+ to protect BD-ROM discs is stupid.  For the original developers it was a surprisingly good scam that they managed to pull off on the movie industry.  BD+ attempts to determine what physical hardware a Turing-complete machine is running, using an obfuscated Java program.  This is futile because another unauthorized Turing-complete machine can easily mimic the behavior of an authorized Blu-Ray player.  The ability of any Turing-complete machine to execute the same program as another Turing-complete machine allows for emulation and is a cornerstone of the Church-Turing Thesis.  For instance, if done properly, an Apple IIe could run the BD+ decryption program, thus mimicking an authorized Blu-Ray player.  However, one should expect quite a bit of floppy disk swapping, and good luck finding enough 5.25" disks in usable shape, especially if you decide to play a 50GB movie on that machine.  On the other hand, trying it on an older machine that used punch cards. Imagine the size of a 50GB punch card deck using standard IBM punch cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ^ 40 would take very little time on a home PC , an afternoon or maybe a day.40 bits is also the size of the keyspace used by HDCP for HDMI and DVI , for " encrypted " HD displays .
I do n't feel like doing the math , but determining all of the 40-bit keys used in HDCP could probably be done in a short time on a reasonable home PC , using a man in the middle attack .
However , for copying HD video , one would still probably get better quality by showing Macrovision , the MPAA , and the Blu-Ray consortium that using BD + to protect BD-ROM discs is stupid .
For the original developers it was a surprisingly good scam that they managed to pull off on the movie industry .
BD + attempts to determine what physical hardware a Turing-complete machine is running , using an obfuscated Java program .
This is futile because another unauthorized Turing-complete machine can easily mimic the behavior of an authorized Blu-Ray player .
The ability of any Turing-complete machine to execute the same program as another Turing-complete machine allows for emulation and is a cornerstone of the Church-Turing Thesis .
For instance , if done properly , an Apple IIe could run the BD + decryption program , thus mimicking an authorized Blu-Ray player .
However , one should expect quite a bit of floppy disk swapping , and good luck finding enough 5.25 " disks in usable shape , especially if you decide to play a 50GB movie on that machine .
On the other hand , trying it on an older machine that used punch cards .
Imagine the size of a 50GB punch card deck using standard IBM punch cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2^40 would take very little time on a home PC, an afternoon or maybe a day.40 bits is also the size of the keyspace used by HDCP for HDMI and DVI, for "encrypted" HD displays.
I don't feel like doing the math, but determining all of the 40-bit keys used in HDCP could probably be done in a short time on a reasonable home PC, using a man in the middle attack.
However, for copying HD video, one would still probably get better quality by showing Macrovision, the MPAA, and the Blu-Ray consortium that using BD+ to protect BD-ROM discs is stupid.
For the original developers it was a surprisingly good scam that they managed to pull off on the movie industry.
BD+ attempts to determine what physical hardware a Turing-complete machine is running, using an obfuscated Java program.
This is futile because another unauthorized Turing-complete machine can easily mimic the behavior of an authorized Blu-Ray player.
The ability of any Turing-complete machine to execute the same program as another Turing-complete machine allows for emulation and is a cornerstone of the Church-Turing Thesis.
For instance, if done properly, an Apple IIe could run the BD+ decryption program, thus mimicking an authorized Blu-Ray player.
However, one should expect quite a bit of floppy disk swapping, and good luck finding enough 5.25" disks in usable shape, especially if you decide to play a 50GB movie on that machine.
On the other hand, trying it on an older machine that used punch cards.
Imagine the size of a 50GB punch card deck using standard IBM punch cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551039</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the Hyperbole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
ZOMG!!! We gonna DIE!!!
</p><p>
Happy now?  AC Wanker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZOMG ! ! !
We gon na DIE ! ! !
Happy now ?
AC Wanker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
ZOMG!!!
We gonna DIE!!!
Happy now?
AC Wanker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551713</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1246451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent is slightly off on the Quantum computing comment.  Quantum computers can break cryptographic protocols based on the difficulty of integer factorization (RSA/PGP/GPG/PKI/SSL/TLS), and discrete-logarithms (all of the above plus elgamal, elliptic curves).  However, AES is a block cipher which relies on neither of these pure-math problems.
<br> <br>
The only advantage of QCs in breaking AES is that Grover's Algorithm can be applied for random guessing of the encryption key.  AES-256 has 2^256 possible encryption keys.  It takes a classical computer an average of n/2 guesses to find the right key, or 2^255 operations.  However a QC running Grover's Algorithm does it in an average of approx sqrt(n) "guesses."  This means that it takes about 2^128 operations to get the AES-256 key using a quantum computer.
<br> <br>
As previous posters have mentioned, 2^128 is still far out of our reach.  And to subvert QCs for this type of problem, all we have to do is double our key length to get the same security.   Perhaps if we find a way to combine Grover's Algorithm with this new AES vulnerability, we can get it down to 2^60 to 2^64, but that is still extremely prohibitive.  Additionally, that's a big "if," since Grover's Algorithm is intended for pure-guessing problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is slightly off on the Quantum computing comment .
Quantum computers can break cryptographic protocols based on the difficulty of integer factorization ( RSA/PGP/GPG/PKI/SSL/TLS ) , and discrete-logarithms ( all of the above plus elgamal , elliptic curves ) .
However , AES is a block cipher which relies on neither of these pure-math problems .
The only advantage of QCs in breaking AES is that Grover 's Algorithm can be applied for random guessing of the encryption key .
AES-256 has 2 ^ 256 possible encryption keys .
It takes a classical computer an average of n/2 guesses to find the right key , or 2 ^ 255 operations .
However a QC running Grover 's Algorithm does it in an average of approx sqrt ( n ) " guesses .
" This means that it takes about 2 ^ 128 operations to get the AES-256 key using a quantum computer .
As previous posters have mentioned , 2 ^ 128 is still far out of our reach .
And to subvert QCs for this type of problem , all we have to do is double our key length to get the same security .
Perhaps if we find a way to combine Grover 's Algorithm with this new AES vulnerability , we can get it down to 2 ^ 60 to 2 ^ 64 , but that is still extremely prohibitive .
Additionally , that 's a big " if , " since Grover 's Algorithm is intended for pure-guessing problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is slightly off on the Quantum computing comment.
Quantum computers can break cryptographic protocols based on the difficulty of integer factorization (RSA/PGP/GPG/PKI/SSL/TLS), and discrete-logarithms (all of the above plus elgamal, elliptic curves).
However, AES is a block cipher which relies on neither of these pure-math problems.
The only advantage of QCs in breaking AES is that Grover's Algorithm can be applied for random guessing of the encryption key.
AES-256 has 2^256 possible encryption keys.
It takes a classical computer an average of n/2 guesses to find the right key, or 2^255 operations.
However a QC running Grover's Algorithm does it in an average of approx sqrt(n) "guesses.
"  This means that it takes about 2^128 operations to get the AES-256 key using a quantum computer.
As previous posters have mentioned, 2^128 is still far out of our reach.
And to subvert QCs for this type of problem, all we have to do is double our key length to get the same security.
Perhaps if we find a way to combine Grover's Algorithm with this new AES vulnerability, we can get it down to 2^60 to 2^64, but that is still extremely prohibitive.
Additionally, that's a big "if," since Grover's Algorithm is intended for pure-guessing problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552765</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1246458720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How do you create a key, when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing?</p></div></blockquote><p>There are several methods of public-key encryption which are secure against quantum computers.  Try Lamport Signatures for a start:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport\_signature" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport\_signature</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you create a key , when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing ? There are several methods of public-key encryption which are secure against quantum computers .
Try Lamport Signatures for a start : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport \ _signature [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you create a key, when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing?There are several methods of public-key encryption which are secure against quantum computers.
Try Lamport Signatures for a start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport\_signature [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551453</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1246450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government will require licenses to run quantum computers, and they'll be so fast that the FBI can run spyware on them without you noticing performance degradation!  If you are innocent you have nothing to hide!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government will require licenses to run quantum computers , and they 'll be so fast that the FBI can run spyware on them without you noticing performance degradation !
If you are innocent you have nothing to hide ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government will require licenses to run quantum computers, and they'll be so fast that the FBI can run spyware on them without you noticing performance degradation!
If you are innocent you have nothing to hide!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550799</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2^119 is a massively large number.</p></div><p>664613997892457936451903530140172288</p><p>Meh. I've seen bigger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ^ 119 is a massively large number.664613997892457936451903530140172288Meh .
I 've seen bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2^119 is a massively large number.664613997892457936451903530140172288Meh.
I've seen bigger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553305</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1246462860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure about that?  Why shouldn't AES-256 be expected to require 2^256 operations to brute force?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure about that ?
Why should n't AES-256 be expected to require 2 ^ 256 operations to brute force ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure about that?
Why shouldn't AES-256 be expected to require 2^256 operations to brute force?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</id>
	<title>Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who don't have a degree in oh-shit-that's-a-big-number, can someone give a comparative analysis of what "2^119" complexity means? I mean what else is "2^119" hard to solve? And yes, the math nerds are undoubtedly either dying of laughter or yelling at the screen for my abuse of powers of two... I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who do n't have a degree in oh-shit-that 's-a-big-number , can someone give a comparative analysis of what " 2 ^ 119 " complexity means ?
I mean what else is " 2 ^ 119 " hard to solve ?
And yes , the math nerds are undoubtedly either dying of laughter or yelling at the screen for my abuse of powers of two... I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who don't have a degree in oh-shit-that's-a-big-number, can someone give a comparative analysis of what "2^119" complexity means?
I mean what else is "2^119" hard to solve?
And yes, the math nerds are undoubtedly either dying of laughter or yelling at the screen for my abuse of powers of two... I don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551429</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. The thing is that a break against AES-256 can use up to 2^256-1 operations and be considered faster than brute force. The same technique wouldn't count as a break against AES-128, because that is brute forceable in 2^128 anyway.</p><p>If there's an attack against AES-256 that takes 2^200 operations, it's considered a break. But this is still more effort than the one needed to just brute force AES-128. So AES-256 would still be more secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
The thing is that a break against AES-256 can use up to 2 ^ 256-1 operations and be considered faster than brute force .
The same technique would n't count as a break against AES-128 , because that is brute forceable in 2 ^ 128 anyway.If there 's an attack against AES-256 that takes 2 ^ 200 operations , it 's considered a break .
But this is still more effort than the one needed to just brute force AES-128 .
So AES-256 would still be more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
The thing is that a break against AES-256 can use up to 2^256-1 operations and be considered faster than brute force.
The same technique wouldn't count as a break against AES-128, because that is brute forceable in 2^128 anyway.If there's an attack against AES-256 that takes 2^200 operations, it's considered a break.
But this is still more effort than the one needed to just brute force AES-128.
So AES-256 would still be more secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554215</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However both 192 and 256 are \_still\_ stronger than 128. So what's there to be smug about?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However both 192 and 256 are \ _still \ _ stronger than 128 .
So what 's there to be smug about ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However both 192 and 256 are \_still\_ stronger than 128.
So what's there to be smug about?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550751</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except IYRTFA, the attack only works on AES-192 and AES-256. AES-128 is unaffected, which would seem to imply that, oddly, AES-128 could be stronger than AES-256 and AES-192 in some circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except IYRTFA , the attack only works on AES-192 and AES-256 .
AES-128 is unaffected , which would seem to imply that , oddly , AES-128 could be stronger than AES-256 and AES-192 in some circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except IYRTFA, the attack only works on AES-192 and AES-256.
AES-128 is unaffected, which would seem to imply that, oddly, AES-128 could be stronger than AES-256 and AES-192 in some circumstances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550741</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>cperciva</author>
	<datestamp>1246446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I mean what else is "2^119" hard to solve?</i></p><p>Finding a file which has an MD5 hash of either 000000000000000000000000000000XX or 000000000000000000000000000001XX for some pair of hexadecimal digits XX.</p><p>Computing the 2^100th bit of Pi (approximately -- the BBP algorithm has some factors of log thrown in, so I've dropped a factor of 2^19 to account for those).</p><p>Sorting a list of 31 elements using bogo-sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean what else is " 2 ^ 119 " hard to solve ? Finding a file which has an MD5 hash of either 000000000000000000000000000000XX or 000000000000000000000000000001XX for some pair of hexadecimal digits XX.Computing the 2 ^ 100th bit of Pi ( approximately -- the BBP algorithm has some factors of log thrown in , so I 've dropped a factor of 2 ^ 19 to account for those ) .Sorting a list of 31 elements using bogo-sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean what else is "2^119" hard to solve?Finding a file which has an MD5 hash of either 000000000000000000000000000000XX or 000000000000000000000000000001XX for some pair of hexadecimal digits XX.Computing the 2^100th bit of Pi (approximately -- the BBP algorithm has some factors of log thrown in, so I've dropped a factor of 2^19 to account for those).Sorting a list of 31 elements using bogo-sort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550891</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>jrl87</author>
	<datestamp>1246447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically they're looking for weaknesses in the encryption or a way to break the encryption.  The basic idea is that if you have a x-bit key for you encryption system then you should be able to generate 2^x different keys.  So for instance if you had 4-bit encryption, then you would have 4 bits that you could assign a value to.  That is you have something like \_ \_ \_ \_ where each \_ can be either a 1 or a 0.  When you work out the number of unique ways you can make this assignment you get 16, or 2^4.</p><p>To break the encryption, you need to find the key.  In the 4-bit example above, it is easy you just try all 16 of the possibilities.  Now, if you raise the encryption strength to say 256-bit, you have 2^256 theoretically possible keys.  Now, if you assume that you can check 30,000 keys per second it would take you well over a million years to check all of the keys (actually somewhere on the order of 10^60 years).  So doing that is obviously not a practical solution.</p><p>So what they're doing is trying to find a method that is more efficient.  There are sometimes reasons why certain keys don't need to be tested and there are statistical methods that should theoretically be more efficient that simply randomly trying keys.  So previous to this study they think the complexity is 2^119.  Though it's not quite right, you can think of this as the average number of keys you would have to try before getting the right one.  With the method they are suggesting they are claiming that the complexity could be lowered to 2^110.5.  Practically speaking, this doesn't really make cracking the key any easier.  But in the future, who knows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically they 're looking for weaknesses in the encryption or a way to break the encryption .
The basic idea is that if you have a x-bit key for you encryption system then you should be able to generate 2 ^ x different keys .
So for instance if you had 4-bit encryption , then you would have 4 bits that you could assign a value to .
That is you have something like \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ where each \ _ can be either a 1 or a 0 .
When you work out the number of unique ways you can make this assignment you get 16 , or 2 ^ 4.To break the encryption , you need to find the key .
In the 4-bit example above , it is easy you just try all 16 of the possibilities .
Now , if you raise the encryption strength to say 256-bit , you have 2 ^ 256 theoretically possible keys .
Now , if you assume that you can check 30,000 keys per second it would take you well over a million years to check all of the keys ( actually somewhere on the order of 10 ^ 60 years ) .
So doing that is obviously not a practical solution.So what they 're doing is trying to find a method that is more efficient .
There are sometimes reasons why certain keys do n't need to be tested and there are statistical methods that should theoretically be more efficient that simply randomly trying keys .
So previous to this study they think the complexity is 2 ^ 119 .
Though it 's not quite right , you can think of this as the average number of keys you would have to try before getting the right one .
With the method they are suggesting they are claiming that the complexity could be lowered to 2 ^ 110.5 .
Practically speaking , this does n't really make cracking the key any easier .
But in the future , who knows .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically they're looking for weaknesses in the encryption or a way to break the encryption.
The basic idea is that if you have a x-bit key for you encryption system then you should be able to generate 2^x different keys.
So for instance if you had 4-bit encryption, then you would have 4 bits that you could assign a value to.
That is you have something like \_ \_ \_ \_ where each \_ can be either a 1 or a 0.
When you work out the number of unique ways you can make this assignment you get 16, or 2^4.To break the encryption, you need to find the key.
In the 4-bit example above, it is easy you just try all 16 of the possibilities.
Now, if you raise the encryption strength to say 256-bit, you have 2^256 theoretically possible keys.
Now, if you assume that you can check 30,000 keys per second it would take you well over a million years to check all of the keys (actually somewhere on the order of 10^60 years).
So doing that is obviously not a practical solution.So what they're doing is trying to find a method that is more efficient.
There are sometimes reasons why certain keys don't need to be tested and there are statistical methods that should theoretically be more efficient that simply randomly trying keys.
So previous to this study they think the complexity is 2^119.
Though it's not quite right, you can think of this as the average number of keys you would have to try before getting the right one.
With the method they are suggesting they are claiming that the complexity could be lowered to 2^110.5.
Practically speaking, this doesn't really make cracking the key any easier.
But in the future, who knows ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551159</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quantum computers won't do much to break block ciphers, they'll only be useful against ciphers which rely on finding factors of large numbers.
<br> <br>
The real-world applications for quantum computers are very limited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum computers wo n't do much to break block ciphers , they 'll only be useful against ciphers which rely on finding factors of large numbers .
The real-world applications for quantum computers are very limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum computers won't do much to break block ciphers, they'll only be useful against ciphers which rely on finding factors of large numbers.
The real-world applications for quantum computers are very limited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553435</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1246464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, I see you basically just spit out what was written on the "Grover's Algorithm" wiki page.  Well, someone should update that page, because the "unsorted database search" is only <b>one example</b> of the usefulness of Grover's Algorithm.
<br> <br>
Since you trust wiki so much, consider the wiki page on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_computer#Potential" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">quantum computers</a> [wikipedia.org] which contains the explanation of Grover's algorithm as I described it.
<br> <br>
I believe because of you, my post got modded down/out, which is a shame since I'm one of the few people here who's actually studied QCs before.  Go read <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1285849&amp;cid=28520061" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> my other post about quantum computers.</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I see you basically just spit out what was written on the " Grover 's Algorithm " wiki page .
Well , someone should update that page , because the " unsorted database search " is only one example of the usefulness of Grover 's Algorithm .
Since you trust wiki so much , consider the wiki page on quantum computers [ wikipedia.org ] which contains the explanation of Grover 's algorithm as I described it .
I believe because of you , my post got modded down/out , which is a shame since I 'm one of the few people here who 's actually studied QCs before .
Go read my other post about quantum computers .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I see you basically just spit out what was written on the "Grover's Algorithm" wiki page.
Well, someone should update that page, because the "unsorted database search" is only one example of the usefulness of Grover's Algorithm.
Since you trust wiki so much, consider the wiki page on quantum computers [wikipedia.org] which contains the explanation of Grover's algorithm as I described it.
I believe because of you, my post got modded down/out, which is a shame since I'm one of the few people here who's actually studied QCs before.
Go read  my other post about quantum computers.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554739</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1246565880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just won the prize for being the person who explained it most succinctly without using exponents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just won the prize for being the person who explained it most succinctly without using exponents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just won the prize for being the person who explained it most succinctly without using exponents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550955</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1246447740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's the expected length of time you'd need to spend tossing a coin before you got 119 heads in a row. A very long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's the expected length of time you 'd need to spend tossing a coin before you got 119 heads in a row .
A very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's the expected length of time you'd need to spend tossing a coin before you got 119 heads in a row.
A very long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550577</id>
	<title>That's Today...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1246446120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Funny how news of just about every major break of an existing cryptography system or secure hash method has started out with just about those same exact words.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES .
Funny how news of just about every major break of an existing cryptography system or secure hash method has started out with just about those same exact words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.
Funny how news of just about every major break of an existing cryptography system or secure hash method has started out with just about those same exact words.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551449</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course, there is always the 2^119 chance that you just happen to guess the answer on the first try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , there is always the 2 ^ 119 chance that you just happen to guess the answer on the first try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, there is always the 2^119 chance that you just happen to guess the answer on the first try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550809</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1246447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me, who aren't cryptography specialists can understand what they're talking about?</i></p><p>Sure I'll rephrase it for you. "Don't worry."</p><p>What? You wanted something deeper without having to know anything? Ok...so AES was thought to require 2^128 time units to brute force. So 2^119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2^119 units of time to complete which is a lot better, and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2^110 units of time.</p><p>What a 'unit of time is' is a computing science hand-wave because it doesn't really matter what it is. When comparing algorithms for large problems you are interested in how it compares relative to other algorithms, not how much absolute time it will take on a Commodore 64 or Intel i7 or whether its programmed in Smalltalk vs C. Those details while important in their own right aren't really relevant to the comparison of the algorithms themselves.</p><p>A 2^110 algorithm is significantly better than a 2^119 algorithm for 'large problems' regardless of what we set the unit of time to be, and in turn 2^119 is much better than 2^128.</p><p>In practice the unit of time is rooted in how long it takes a computer to do 'an operation'. So it might be milliseconds or nanoseconds, or whatever. And the upshot is that even 2^110 is STILL gazillion years even if its programmed in C on an i7 and every i7 on the planet is contributing to the effort...</p><p>Hence... "Don't worry."</p><p>Its mathematically very interesting, but for the moment, its nothing to "worry" about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me , who are n't cryptography specialists can understand what they 're talking about ? Sure I 'll rephrase it for you .
" Do n't worry. " What ?
You wanted something deeper without having to know anything ?
Ok...so AES was thought to require 2 ^ 128 time units to brute force .
So 2 ^ 119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2 ^ 119 units of time to complete which is a lot better , and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2 ^ 110 units of time.What a 'unit of time is ' is a computing science hand-wave because it does n't really matter what it is .
When comparing algorithms for large problems you are interested in how it compares relative to other algorithms , not how much absolute time it will take on a Commodore 64 or Intel i7 or whether its programmed in Smalltalk vs C. Those details while important in their own right are n't really relevant to the comparison of the algorithms themselves.A 2 ^ 110 algorithm is significantly better than a 2 ^ 119 algorithm for 'large problems ' regardless of what we set the unit of time to be , and in turn 2 ^ 119 is much better than 2 ^ 128.In practice the unit of time is rooted in how long it takes a computer to do 'an operation' .
So it might be milliseconds or nanoseconds , or whatever .
And the upshot is that even 2 ^ 110 is STILL gazillion years even if its programmed in C on an i7 and every i7 on the planet is contributing to the effort...Hence... " Do n't worry .
" Its mathematically very interesting , but for the moment , its nothing to " worry " about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me, who aren't cryptography specialists can understand what they're talking about?Sure I'll rephrase it for you.
"Don't worry."What?
You wanted something deeper without having to know anything?
Ok...so AES was thought to require 2^128 time units to brute force.
So 2^119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2^119 units of time to complete which is a lot better, and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2^110 units of time.What a 'unit of time is' is a computing science hand-wave because it doesn't really matter what it is.
When comparing algorithms for large problems you are interested in how it compares relative to other algorithms, not how much absolute time it will take on a Commodore 64 or Intel i7 or whether its programmed in Smalltalk vs C. Those details while important in their own right aren't really relevant to the comparison of the algorithms themselves.A 2^110 algorithm is significantly better than a 2^119 algorithm for 'large problems' regardless of what we set the unit of time to be, and in turn 2^119 is much better than 2^128.In practice the unit of time is rooted in how long it takes a computer to do 'an operation'.
So it might be milliseconds or nanoseconds, or whatever.
And the upshot is that even 2^110 is STILL gazillion years even if its programmed in C on an i7 and every i7 on the planet is contributing to the effort...Hence... "Don't worry.
"Its mathematically very interesting, but for the moment, its nothing to "worry" about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552861</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1246459380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES.</p></div><p>NSA specifies AES-256 for Top Secret information in Suite-B products.  NSA knows crypto.  So, if NSA thinks that AES-256 is stronger than AES-128, and if recent results indicate that AES-256 only has 110 bits worth of strength, then one might wonder, "what is the actual security level of AES-128?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it 's now the strongest variant of AES.NSA specifies AES-256 for Top Secret information in Suite-B products .
NSA knows crypto .
So , if NSA thinks that AES-256 is stronger than AES-128 , and if recent results indicate that AES-256 only has 110 bits worth of strength , then one might wonder , " what is the actual security level of AES-128 ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES.NSA specifies AES-256 for Top Secret information in Suite-B products.
NSA knows crypto.
So, if NSA thinks that AES-256 is stronger than AES-128, and if recent results indicate that AES-256 only has 110 bits worth of strength, then one might wonder, "what is the actual security level of AES-128?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550931</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means it just got <em>roughly</em> 400 times faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means it just got roughly 400 times faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means it just got roughly 400 times faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552165</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246454100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just for fun, wolfram-alpha it (doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it?).  That is what it's designed to do, after all - plus I found the results a little more useful than google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for fun , wolfram-alpha it ( does n't exactly roll off the tongue , does it ? ) .
That is what it 's designed to do , after all - plus I found the results a little more useful than google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for fun, wolfram-alpha it (doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it?).
That is what it's designed to do, after all - plus I found the results a little more useful than google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555455</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and when I say "strongest" I mean in a pure math sort of way.
<br> <br>
Any attack which starts with things like "first you encrypt 2^128 carefully chosen plaintexts and store them in a hash table" isn't really an attack you should worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and when I say " strongest " I mean in a pure math sort of way .
Any attack which starts with things like " first you encrypt 2 ^ 128 carefully chosen plaintexts and store them in a hash table " is n't really an attack you should worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and when I say "strongest" I mean in a pure math sort of way.
Any attack which starts with things like "first you encrypt 2^128 carefully chosen plaintexts and store them in a hash table" isn't really an attack you should worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551839</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1246452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, it says how long it would take to be sure to crack it.</p><p>To give a comparison, most machines on the net today is clocked at ~4Ghz, that is 4 000 000 000 instructions per second. Imagine a CPU:s doped for only one thing, and one cpu-cycle would mean one key tested ( in reality, there's more like maybe 1000s of cycles/test or something like that ). That would mean that the cpu crunched 172 000 billions of tests per day. With that monster cpu, it would still take 5 billions of billion years to be sure to crunch that encryption.</p><p>Even if you filled the theoretical limits of todays internet (unfortunately, IPv6 is still the internet of tomorrow) with these monster machines, it would still take 1,25 billon years to be sure to find the key. This all is of course just theory. Who knows, if you're lucky you may get it in a tenth of that time, only 125 million years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>As a footnote, for the cost of those monster-machines, the operational cost of them and the staff to support them, you'd be much better off bying an army. Physical security in most places is much weaker than AES currently, so it would be much easier just to force the secrets out.</p><p>Disclaimer: All this assumes turing-machines, where only one solution at a time can be evaluated. In a quantum-processor, you could theoretically do much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , it says how long it would take to be sure to crack it.To give a comparison , most machines on the net today is clocked at ~ 4Ghz , that is 4 000 000 000 instructions per second .
Imagine a CPU : s doped for only one thing , and one cpu-cycle would mean one key tested ( in reality , there 's more like maybe 1000s of cycles/test or something like that ) .
That would mean that the cpu crunched 172 000 billions of tests per day .
With that monster cpu , it would still take 5 billions of billion years to be sure to crunch that encryption.Even if you filled the theoretical limits of todays internet ( unfortunately , IPv6 is still the internet of tomorrow ) with these monster machines , it would still take 1,25 billon years to be sure to find the key .
This all is of course just theory .
Who knows , if you 're lucky you may get it in a tenth of that time , only 125 million years .
; ) As a footnote , for the cost of those monster-machines , the operational cost of them and the staff to support them , you 'd be much better off bying an army .
Physical security in most places is much weaker than AES currently , so it would be much easier just to force the secrets out.Disclaimer : All this assumes turing-machines , where only one solution at a time can be evaluated .
In a quantum-processor , you could theoretically do much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, it says how long it would take to be sure to crack it.To give a comparison, most machines on the net today is clocked at ~4Ghz, that is 4 000 000 000 instructions per second.
Imagine a CPU:s doped for only one thing, and one cpu-cycle would mean one key tested ( in reality, there's more like maybe 1000s of cycles/test or something like that ).
That would mean that the cpu crunched 172 000 billions of tests per day.
With that monster cpu, it would still take 5 billions of billion years to be sure to crunch that encryption.Even if you filled the theoretical limits of todays internet (unfortunately, IPv6 is still the internet of tomorrow) with these monster machines, it would still take 1,25 billon years to be sure to find the key.
This all is of course just theory.
Who knows, if you're lucky you may get it in a tenth of that time, only 125 million years.
;)As a footnote, for the cost of those monster-machines, the operational cost of them and the staff to support them, you'd be much better off bying an army.
Physical security in most places is much weaker than AES currently, so it would be much easier just to force the secrets out.Disclaimer: All this assumes turing-machines, where only one solution at a time can be evaluated.
In a quantum-processor, you could theoretically do much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552777</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>SeekerDarksteel</author>
	<datestamp>1246458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly does Grover's Algorithm help in this situation?  With Grover's, you have an unsorted list and want to look up the position of an arbitrary element in the list.  This takes O(n) sequentially, but O(sqrt(n)) with Grover's.  It has absolutely nothing to do with guessing.  In brute-forcing a block cipher, you have a large number of keys and you need to try each one sequentially.  There's no lookup involved at all.  I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call bullshit, something I need to do all too much in QC related topics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly does Grover 's Algorithm help in this situation ?
With Grover 's , you have an unsorted list and want to look up the position of an arbitrary element in the list .
This takes O ( n ) sequentially , but O ( sqrt ( n ) ) with Grover 's .
It has absolutely nothing to do with guessing .
In brute-forcing a block cipher , you have a large number of keys and you need to try each one sequentially .
There 's no lookup involved at all .
I 'm afraid I 'm gon na have to call bullshit , something I need to do all too much in QC related topics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly does Grover's Algorithm help in this situation?
With Grover's, you have an unsorted list and want to look up the position of an arbitrary element in the list.
This takes O(n) sequentially, but O(sqrt(n)) with Grover's.
It has absolutely nothing to do with guessing.
In brute-forcing a block cipher, you have a large number of keys and you need to try each one sequentially.
There's no lookup involved at all.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call bullshit, something I need to do all too much in QC related topics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555709</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hehe, and now YOUR post is the first hit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , and now YOUR post is the first hit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, and now YOUR post is the first hit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556275</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246541820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>]"why would this NOT affect 128 bit AES?"
<br> <br>
AES-256 is really AES-128 in disguise. The only difference is that instead of having a single 128-bit key you alternate between the two halves of the 256 bit key at each step of the encryption process (ok, it's not a simple swap but you get the idea). This messing about with the key is what caused the weakness - it introduced a pattern into what should be a patternless output.
<br> <br>
AES128 doesn't do this so it's immune.</htmltext>
<tokenext>] " why would this NOT affect 128 bit AES ?
" AES-256 is really AES-128 in disguise .
The only difference is that instead of having a single 128-bit key you alternate between the two halves of the 256 bit key at each step of the encryption process ( ok , it 's not a simple swap but you get the idea ) .
This messing about with the key is what caused the weakness - it introduced a pattern into what should be a patternless output .
AES128 does n't do this so it 's immune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>]"why would this NOT affect 128 bit AES?
"
 
AES-256 is really AES-128 in disguise.
The only difference is that instead of having a single 128-bit key you alternate between the two halves of the 256 bit key at each step of the encryption process (ok, it's not a simple swap but you get the idea).
This messing about with the key is what caused the weakness - it introduced a pattern into what should be a patternless output.
AES128 doesn't do this so it's immune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552893</id>
	<title>Re:Furthers my stand on crypto, which is: DON'T</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1246459560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not joking. He found the pattern that describes all prime numbers. So did I. It's pretty simple in hindsight.</p><p>Wait, who's thaNO CARRIER</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not joking .
He found the pattern that describes all prime numbers .
So did I. It 's pretty simple in hindsight.Wait , who 's thaNO CARRIER</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not joking.
He found the pattern that describes all prime numbers.
So did I. It's pretty simple in hindsight.Wait, who's thaNO CARRIER</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551135</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>dermoth666</author>
	<datestamp>1246448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, besides primes there's a bunch of random data that gets in key generation. Knowing the primes only make it slightly easier to crack the key.</p><p>By default PGP use a known set of primes to generate keys, and so far keys generated by it are still secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , besides primes there 's a bunch of random data that gets in key generation .
Knowing the primes only make it slightly easier to crack the key.By default PGP use a known set of primes to generate keys , and so far keys generated by it are still secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, besides primes there's a bunch of random data that gets in key generation.
Knowing the primes only make it slightly easier to crack the key.By default PGP use a known set of primes to generate keys, and so far keys generated by it are still secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550459</id>
	<title>Gordon Moore Says Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, <a href="http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop" title="nimp.org" rel="nofollow">AES is in for a big one!</a> [nimp.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , AES is in for a big one !
[ nimp.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, AES is in for a big one!
[nimp.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551125</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love that this got moderated redundant while a post that is essentially the same that comes AFTER this one gets modded insightful.</p><p>Oh look, that one was by a girl!  Let's mod her up! WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love that this got moderated redundant while a post that is essentially the same that comes AFTER this one gets modded insightful.Oh look , that one was by a girl !
Let 's mod her up !
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love that this got moderated redundant while a post that is essentially the same that comes AFTER this one gets modded insightful.Oh look, that one was by a girl!
Let's mod her up!
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556227</id>
	<title>It's not practical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First:  Don't panic.</p><p>This attack is not practical, it requires from what I read at least 2^62 encryptions with 4 related keys.  Name me one transaction where that's likely to open to the attacker.  Most things like SSL use only 1 key [then the next is randomly generated] and every SSL session so far in history has been far less than 2^66 bytes in length (nor were they with related texts).  So it's an attack in the sense that yes, in theory you can break AES in very contrived [in the lab] scenarios.  But under those circumstances you could already break AES-256 in 2^128 effort [hint: encrypt every plaintext and look it up].</p><p>What this attack REALLY shows is that AES cannot be used as an MD style hash.  Which is fine because a real hash would be faster, and for MAC'ing purposes like CMAC, CCM, or GCM they don't operate in MD mode anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : Do n't panic.This attack is not practical , it requires from what I read at least 2 ^ 62 encryptions with 4 related keys .
Name me one transaction where that 's likely to open to the attacker .
Most things like SSL use only 1 key [ then the next is randomly generated ] and every SSL session so far in history has been far less than 2 ^ 66 bytes in length ( nor were they with related texts ) .
So it 's an attack in the sense that yes , in theory you can break AES in very contrived [ in the lab ] scenarios .
But under those circumstances you could already break AES-256 in 2 ^ 128 effort [ hint : encrypt every plaintext and look it up ] .What this attack REALLY shows is that AES can not be used as an MD style hash .
Which is fine because a real hash would be faster , and for MAC'ing purposes like CMAC , CCM , or GCM they do n't operate in MD mode anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First:  Don't panic.This attack is not practical, it requires from what I read at least 2^62 encryptions with 4 related keys.
Name me one transaction where that's likely to open to the attacker.
Most things like SSL use only 1 key [then the next is randomly generated] and every SSL session so far in history has been far less than 2^66 bytes in length (nor were they with related texts).
So it's an attack in the sense that yes, in theory you can break AES in very contrived [in the lab] scenarios.
But under those circumstances you could already break AES-256 in 2^128 effort [hint: encrypt every plaintext and look it up].What this attack REALLY shows is that AES cannot be used as an MD style hash.
Which is fine because a real hash would be faster, and for MAC'ing purposes like CMAC, CCM, or GCM they don't operate in MD mode anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551035</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is 2^119 a big number...its around 6e35.</p><p>Wolfram says that the milky way galaxy weighs around 6e45 grams.</p><p>assuming 1 mol of electrons in 1 gram of galaxy, you're talking about 3e69 electrons in the whole galaxy.</p><p>I suppose it might be possible within the confines of our galaxy to do something 2^119 times.  We do have enough electrons.  That's an important upper bound to not violate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is 2 ^ 119 a big number...its around 6e35.Wolfram says that the milky way galaxy weighs around 6e45 grams.assuming 1 mol of electrons in 1 gram of galaxy , you 're talking about 3e69 electrons in the whole galaxy.I suppose it might be possible within the confines of our galaxy to do something 2 ^ 119 times .
We do have enough electrons .
That 's an important upper bound to not violate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is 2^119 a big number...its around 6e35.Wolfram says that the milky way galaxy weighs around 6e45 grams.assuming 1 mol of electrons in 1 gram of galaxy, you're talking about 3e69 electrons in the whole galaxy.I suppose it might be possible within the confines of our galaxy to do something 2^119 times.
We do have enough electrons.
That's an important upper bound to not violate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551101</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm reading the paper correctly, it appears that AES-128 is unaffected.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading the paper correctly , it appears that AES-128 is unaffected .
( Please correct me if I 'm wrong !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading the paper correctly, it appears that AES-128 is unaffected.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550747</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1246446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of years ago (2003), a cryptographic system was said to be secured if it requires more than 2^80 computation. I do not know what is the current standard and I have no clue how to find it.<br>

However 2^110 is still way to large for us at the moment.<br>

To give an estimation. Supose you have one million processors clocked at 10Ghz (which nobody have nowadays), you can do 10^6 * 10^10 = 10^16 ~= 2^48 computations per second. To crack AES and using this machine you'll need 2^110 / 2^48 = 2^62 seconds to do so which is approximatively 150 billions year.<br>

The attack is of theoretical interest mainly but should tell people not to use AES with a cryptographical key smaller than 256.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of years ago ( 2003 ) , a cryptographic system was said to be secured if it requires more than 2 ^ 80 computation .
I do not know what is the current standard and I have no clue how to find it .
However 2 ^ 110 is still way to large for us at the moment .
To give an estimation .
Supose you have one million processors clocked at 10Ghz ( which nobody have nowadays ) , you can do 10 ^ 6 * 10 ^ 10 = 10 ^ 16 ~ = 2 ^ 48 computations per second .
To crack AES and using this machine you 'll need 2 ^ 110 / 2 ^ 48 = 2 ^ 62 seconds to do so which is approximatively 150 billions year .
The attack is of theoretical interest mainly but should tell people not to use AES with a cryptographical key smaller than 256 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of years ago (2003), a cryptographic system was said to be secured if it requires more than 2^80 computation.
I do not know what is the current standard and I have no clue how to find it.
However 2^110 is still way to large for us at the moment.
To give an estimation.
Supose you have one million processors clocked at 10Ghz (which nobody have nowadays), you can do 10^6 * 10^10 = 10^16 ~= 2^48 computations per second.
To crack AES and using this machine you'll need 2^110 / 2^48 = 2^62 seconds to do so which is approximatively 150 billions year.
The attack is of theoretical interest mainly but should tell people not to use AES with a cryptographical key smaller than 256.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551597</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>AlHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1246450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Just for fun, google this: 2^119 picoseconds in millenia</p><p>And for even more fun - 64 minutes after the parent posted, the post itself was the first result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Just for fun , google this : 2 ^ 119 picoseconds in milleniaAnd for even more fun - 64 minutes after the parent posted , the post itself was the first result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Just for fun, google this: 2^119 picoseconds in milleniaAnd for even more fun - 64 minutes after the parent posted, the post itself was the first result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551791</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"can someone give a comparative analysis of what "2^119" complexity means?"</p></div><p>What is the exact location of the flight 449 recorders??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" can someone give a comparative analysis of what " 2 ^ 119 " complexity means ?
" What is the exact location of the flight 449 recorders ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"can someone give a comparative analysis of what "2^119" complexity means?
"What is the exact location of the flight 449 recorders?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552761</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246458720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(((((2^110) / 1 000 000 000 000) / 60) / 60) / 24) / 365 = 4.11616633 &#195;-- 10^13</p><p>If we have 1000 x 1 GHz processors, the attack was reduced to 4.12 x 10^13 years. Great... now i only have to play with my fingers... tu turu...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( ( ( ( ( 2 ^ 110 ) / 1 000 000 000 000 ) / 60 ) / 60 ) / 24 ) / 365 = 4.11616633   -- 10 ^ 13If we have 1000 x 1 GHz processors , the attack was reduced to 4.12 x 10 ^ 13 years .
Great... now i only have to play with my fingers... tu turu.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(((((2^110) / 1 000 000 000 000) / 60) / 60) / 24) / 365 = 4.11616633 Ã-- 10^13If we have 1000 x 1 GHz processors, the attack was reduced to 4.12 x 10^13 years.
Great... now i only have to play with my fingers... tu turu...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550613</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1246446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Normally, "complexity" in computer science refers to how long it takes to do a given task, given the size of the task.  It's usually expressed as O(blah), read, "Order of blah".  For example, an O(n^2) ("order n squared") complexity means that if it takes "m" minutes to finish a problem of size x, then it will take 16m minutes to finish a problem of size 4x.  I'm not familiar with the term "complexity" being used in this context and with these specific numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally , " complexity " in computer science refers to how long it takes to do a given task , given the size of the task .
It 's usually expressed as O ( blah ) , read , " Order of blah " .
For example , an O ( n ^ 2 ) ( " order n squared " ) complexity means that if it takes " m " minutes to finish a problem of size x , then it will take 16m minutes to finish a problem of size 4x .
I 'm not familiar with the term " complexity " being used in this context and with these specific numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally, "complexity" in computer science refers to how long it takes to do a given task, given the size of the task.
It's usually expressed as O(blah), read, "Order of blah".
For example, an O(n^2) ("order n squared") complexity means that if it takes "m" minutes to finish a problem of size x, then it will take 16m minutes to finish a problem of size 4x.
I'm not familiar with the term "complexity" being used in this context and with these specific numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of taking 1 million years to brute force, it will take<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 million years?</p><p>I totally made up those numbers but that's about the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of taking 1 million years to brute force , it will take .9 million years ? I totally made up those numbers but that 's about the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of taking 1 million years to brute force, it will take .9 million years?I totally made up those numbers but that's about the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555231</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT DOWN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is wrong. This is a related key attack and not one of the standard known plaintext attacks. AES-128 is supposed to have a complexity of 2^64 against those (please google before talking about the obvious "this is just for hashes"). So AES-256 is still better than AES-128.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is wrong .
This is a related key attack and not one of the standard known plaintext attacks .
AES-128 is supposed to have a complexity of 2 ^ 64 against those ( please google before talking about the obvious " this is just for hashes " ) .
So AES-256 is still better than AES-128 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is wrong.
This is a related key attack and not one of the standard known plaintext attacks.
AES-128 is supposed to have a complexity of 2^64 against those (please google before talking about the obvious "this is just for hashes").
So AES-256 is still better than AES-128.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552191</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>someSnarkyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1246454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they switch to the cipher they should have gone with, namely Serpent: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent\_(cipher)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent\_(cipher)</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/serpent.html" title="cam.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/serpent.html</a> [cam.ac.uk]

For those too lazy to read the links, Rijndael (aka AES) is faster, simpler, and more elegantly designed than Serpent. Serpent is more conservative, slightly slower in software (faster in hardware though), and not quite as pretty aesthetically. Rijndael was chosen to become AES for its speed and simplicity, two things IMO that have minimal desirability in a cryptography algorithm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they switch to the cipher they should have gone with , namely Serpent : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent \ _ ( cipher ) [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ ~ rja14/serpent.html [ cam.ac.uk ] For those too lazy to read the links , Rijndael ( aka AES ) is faster , simpler , and more elegantly designed than Serpent .
Serpent is more conservative , slightly slower in software ( faster in hardware though ) , and not quite as pretty aesthetically .
Rijndael was chosen to become AES for its speed and simplicity , two things IMO that have minimal desirability in a cryptography algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they switch to the cipher they should have gone with, namely Serpent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent\_(cipher) [wikipedia.org] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/serpent.html [cam.ac.uk]

For those too lazy to read the links, Rijndael (aka AES) is faster, simpler, and more elegantly designed than Serpent.
Serpent is more conservative, slightly slower in software (faster in hardware though), and not quite as pretty aesthetically.
Rijndael was chosen to become AES for its speed and simplicity, two things IMO that have minimal desirability in a cryptography algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556911</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>emlyncorrin</author>
	<datestamp>1246545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok...so AES was thought to require 2^128 time units to brute force. So 2^119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2^119 units of time to complete which is a lot better, and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2^110 units of time.</p></div><p>Where does 2^128 come from? I would have expected 2^255, since on average you need to try half of the 2^256 possible keys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok...so AES was thought to require 2 ^ 128 time units to brute force .
So 2 ^ 119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2 ^ 119 units of time to complete which is a lot better , and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2 ^ 110 units of time.Where does 2 ^ 128 come from ?
I would have expected 2 ^ 255 , since on average you need to try half of the 2 ^ 256 possible keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok...so AES was thought to require 2^128 time units to brute force.
So 2^119 time complexity means essentially that the new algorithm takes 2^119 units of time to complete which is a lot better, and they think it might be able to optimize it down to 2^110 units of time.Where does 2^128 come from?
I would have expected 2^255, since on average you need to try half of the 2^256 possible keys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551057</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While cracking 2^256 may not be theoretically impossible, it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he's dead.</p></div><p>So you're saying that 256 bits should be enough for anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While cracking 2 ^ 256 may not be theoretically impossible , it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he 's dead.So you 're saying that 256 bits should be enough for anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While cracking 2^256 may not be theoretically impossible, it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he's dead.So you're saying that 256 bits should be enough for anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551123</id>
	<title>Only one thing come to my mind:</title>
	<author>geantvert</author>
	<datestamp>1246448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/538/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/538/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/538/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551641</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's the only kind of number that makes sense without using the 2^x notation - 137 bits broken, 119 bits of strength left. It's lost <b>over half</b> the bitstrength. If it'd been the same for 128 bit keys, it'd be well into crackable ranges. That's really the big issueeasily  here, why would this <b>NOT</b> affect 128 bit AES? Did they do something really, really smart in that version that leaves them immune? Or is it rather we don't want to set of every alarm bell there is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's the only kind of number that makes sense without using the 2 ^ x notation - 137 bits broken , 119 bits of strength left .
It 's lost over half the bitstrength .
If it 'd been the same for 128 bit keys , it 'd be well into crackable ranges .
That 's really the big issueeasily here , why would this NOT affect 128 bit AES ?
Did they do something really , really smart in that version that leaves them immune ?
Or is it rather we do n't want to set of every alarm bell there is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's the only kind of number that makes sense without using the 2^x notation - 137 bits broken, 119 bits of strength left.
It's lost over half the bitstrength.
If it'd been the same for 128 bit keys, it'd be well into crackable ranges.
That's really the big issueeasily  here, why would this NOT affect 128 bit AES?
Did they do something really, really smart in that version that leaves them immune?
Or is it rather we don't want to set of every alarm bell there is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1246446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long. That means in order to "break AES" (in order to decrypt something you don't have the key to), all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works. That means you would have to try 2^128 different combinations, which is a lot.
</p><p>What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2^119 combinations. Effectively this means AES is no better than if it had used 119-bit keys instead of 128-bit keys. Sometimes you'll hear this colloquially as something like "AES has 119 bits of security", referring to how many combinations of keys you have to try before you find the one works.
</p><p>2^119 is a massively large number. Trying 2^119 combinations is still terribly far outside of the realm of what all of the world's most powerful supercomputers combined could hope to do. This is an attack of theoretical interest, not practical interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long .
That means in order to " break AES " ( in order to decrypt something you do n't have the key to ) , all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works .
That means you would have to try 2 ^ 128 different combinations , which is a lot .
What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2 ^ 119 combinations .
Effectively this means AES is no better than if it had used 119-bit keys instead of 128-bit keys .
Sometimes you 'll hear this colloquially as something like " AES has 119 bits of security " , referring to how many combinations of keys you have to try before you find the one works .
2 ^ 119 is a massively large number .
Trying 2 ^ 119 combinations is still terribly far outside of the realm of what all of the world 's most powerful supercomputers combined could hope to do .
This is an attack of theoretical interest , not practical interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long.
That means in order to "break AES" (in order to decrypt something you don't have the key to), all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works.
That means you would have to try 2^128 different combinations, which is a lot.
What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2^119 combinations.
Effectively this means AES is no better than if it had used 119-bit keys instead of 128-bit keys.
Sometimes you'll hear this colloquially as something like "AES has 119 bits of security", referring to how many combinations of keys you have to try before you find the one works.
2^119 is a massively large number.
Trying 2^119 combinations is still terribly far outside of the realm of what all of the world's most powerful supercomputers combined could hope to do.
This is an attack of theoretical interest, not practical interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550831</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get you an idea, it would take a billion computers trying 1 key every nanosecond more than 20 billion years to try out all the key combinations of 2^119.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get you an idea , it would take a billion computers trying 1 key every nanosecond more than 20 billion years to try out all the key combinations of 2 ^ 119 .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get you an idea, it would take a billion computers trying 1 key every nanosecond more than 20 billion years to try out all the key combinations of 2^119.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552783</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1246458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but if you include the word "password", "admin" or  in your tests, you usually get the answer in a lot fewer than 2^119 test keys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but if you include the word " password " , " admin " or in your tests , you usually get the answer in a lot fewer than 2 ^ 119 test keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but if you include the word "password", "admin" or  in your tests, you usually get the answer in a lot fewer than 2^119 test keys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553211</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1246462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long would it take you to count to 2^119? The time it took to crack AES used to be a multiple of that.</p><p>Now how long would it take you to count to 2^110.5? The new time to crack AES is a multiple of that number, which anyone who went to college will tell you is MUCH smaller than 2^119. It's still a big number, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long would it take you to count to 2 ^ 119 ?
The time it took to crack AES used to be a multiple of that.Now how long would it take you to count to 2 ^ 110.5 ?
The new time to crack AES is a multiple of that number , which anyone who went to college will tell you is MUCH smaller than 2 ^ 119 .
It 's still a big number , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long would it take you to count to 2^119?
The time it took to crack AES used to be a multiple of that.Now how long would it take you to count to 2^110.5?
The new time to crack AES is a multiple of that number, which anyone who went to college will tell you is MUCH smaller than 2^119.
It's still a big number, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28565153</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246532580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't divide the exponent by two.  You divide the result by two.  In a power of two, you subtract one from the exponent.  You have a 50\% chance of having the correct AES-128 key with 2^127 keys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't divide the exponent by two .
You divide the result by two .
In a power of two , you subtract one from the exponent .
You have a 50 \ % chance of having the correct AES-128 key with 2 ^ 127 keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't divide the exponent by two.
You divide the result by two.
In a power of two, you subtract one from the exponent.
You have a 50\% chance of having the correct AES-128 key with 2^127 keys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551595</id>
	<title>My brain saw NES...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and wondered if perhaps there were some bad cartridges being distributed these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and wondered if perhaps there were some bad cartridges being distributed these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and wondered if perhaps there were some bad cartridges being distributed these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551375</id>
	<title>Actually, nerdless wanna be, 1 bit = 100\% stronger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 128 bits is good enough, 129 bits is twice as good as good enough.  130 bits is 4x, 131 is 8x, and so on.  I am aware that nerdless wanna bes will never grok this binary stuff, but I know you don't know, and that's all that needs to be known, for the both of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 128 bits is good enough , 129 bits is twice as good as good enough .
130 bits is 4x , 131 is 8x , and so on .
I am aware that nerdless wan na bes will never grok this binary stuff , but I know you do n't know , and that 's all that needs to be known , for the both of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 128 bits is good enough, 129 bits is twice as good as good enough.
130 bits is 4x, 131 is 8x, and so on.
I am aware that nerdless wanna bes will never grok this binary stuff, but I know you don't know, and that's all that needs to be known, for the both of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550681</id>
	<title>Re:That's Today...</title>
	<author>Godji</author>
	<datestamp>1246446420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Examples?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552371</id>
	<title>visualizing the improvement</title>
	<author>layer3switch</author>
	<datestamp>1246455540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>2^256<br> 26&nbsp; 25&nbsp; 24&nbsp; 23&nbsp; 22&nbsp; 21&nbsp; 20&nbsp; 19&nbsp; 18&nbsp; 17&nbsp; 16&nbsp; 15&nbsp; 14&nbsp; 13&nbsp; 12&nbsp; 11&nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp;9&nbsp; &nbsp;8&nbsp; &nbsp;7&nbsp; &nbsp;6&nbsp; &nbsp;5&nbsp; &nbsp;4&nbsp; &nbsp;3&nbsp; &nbsp;2&nbsp; &nbsp;1<br>115 792 089 237 316 195 423 570 985 008 687 907 853 269 984 665 640 564 039 457 584 007 913 129 639 936<br><br>2^119<br> 12&nbsp; 11&nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp;9&nbsp; &nbsp;8&nbsp; &nbsp;7&nbsp; &nbsp;6&nbsp; &nbsp;5&nbsp; &nbsp;4&nbsp; &nbsp;3&nbsp; &nbsp;2&nbsp; &nbsp;1<br>664 613 997 892 457 936 451 903 530 140 172 288<br><br>2^110.5 (rounded off to nearest units)<br> 12&nbsp; 11&nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp;9&nbsp; &nbsp;8&nbsp; &nbsp;7&nbsp; &nbsp;6&nbsp; &nbsp;5&nbsp; &nbsp;4&nbsp; &nbsp;3&nbsp; &nbsp;2&nbsp; &nbsp;1<br>&nbsp; 1 835 754 156 221 338 741 132 617 695 578 321<br><br>2 significant figures improvement!&nbsp; That's freaking amazing.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ^ 256 26   25   24   23   22   21   20   19   18   17   16   15   14   13   12   11   10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1115 792 089 237 316 195 423 570 985 008 687 907 853 269 984 665 640 564 039 457 584 007 913 129 639 9362 ^ 119 12   11   10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1664 613 997 892 457 936 451 903 530 140 172 2882 ^ 110.5 ( rounded off to nearest units ) 12   11   10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1   1 835 754 156 221 338 741 132 617 695 578 3212 significant figures improvement !   That 's freaking amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2^256 26  25  24  23  22  21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1115 792 089 237 316 195 423 570 985 008 687 907 853 269 984 665 640 564 039 457 584 007 913 129 639 9362^119 12  11  10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1664 613 997 892 457 936 451 903 530 140 172 2882^110.5 (rounded off to nearest units) 12  11  10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1  1 835 754 156 221 338 741 132 617 695 578 3212 significant figures improvement!  That's freaking amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554139</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>PurplePhase</author>
	<datestamp>1246473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So from other people's numbers, does this mean AES-256 and AES-192 break in 2^110-ish while AES-128 breaks in 2^128?  Are there similarly comparable numbers for PGP, GPG, and, well, everything else?  I'm still trying to figure out the best algorithm to choose and these metrics could help.  Or should they?</p><p>Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So from other people 's numbers , does this mean AES-256 and AES-192 break in 2 ^ 110-ish while AES-128 breaks in 2 ^ 128 ?
Are there similarly comparable numbers for PGP , GPG , and , well , everything else ?
I 'm still trying to figure out the best algorithm to choose and these metrics could help .
Or should they ? Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So from other people's numbers, does this mean AES-256 and AES-192 break in 2^110-ish while AES-128 breaks in 2^128?
Are there similarly comparable numbers for PGP, GPG, and, well, everything else?
I'm still trying to figure out the best algorithm to choose and these metrics could help.
Or should they?Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246448280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means you only have to test 2^119 possible keys to break 256-bit AES - still far beyond what's ever going to be feasible (do the math - give everybody on the planet a million PCs running at 1THz and see how long it takes to do 2^119 things, then figure out where you're going to get that much electricity from)
<br> <br>
Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES. Everybody (like me) who thought the 256-bit and 192-bit were a waste of time now has a reason to be smug about it.
<br> <br>
Reason: Both AES-192 and AES-256 are just AES-128 internally but they mess around with the key data between each loop of the encryption process. The new attack only works on the "messing around" part of the process so AES-128 is unaffected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means you only have to test 2 ^ 119 possible keys to break 256-bit AES - still far beyond what 's ever going to be feasible ( do the math - give everybody on the planet a million PCs running at 1THz and see how long it takes to do 2 ^ 119 things , then figure out where you 're going to get that much electricity from ) Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it 's now the strongest variant of AES .
Everybody ( like me ) who thought the 256-bit and 192-bit were a waste of time now has a reason to be smug about it .
Reason : Both AES-192 and AES-256 are just AES-128 internally but they mess around with the key data between each loop of the encryption process .
The new attack only works on the " messing around " part of the process so AES-128 is unaffected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means you only have to test 2^119 possible keys to break 256-bit AES - still far beyond what's ever going to be feasible (do the math - give everybody on the planet a million PCs running at 1THz and see how long it takes to do 2^119 things, then figure out where you're going to get that much electricity from)
 
Interesting to note is that AES-128 is immune to this attack - it's now the strongest variant of AES.
Everybody (like me) who thought the 256-bit and 192-bit were a waste of time now has a reason to be smug about it.
Reason: Both AES-192 and AES-256 are just AES-128 internally but they mess around with the key data between each loop of the encryption process.
The new attack only works on the "messing around" part of the process so AES-128 is unaffected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558693</id>
	<title>"Crypto is always broken." is a myth</title>
	<author>0ptix</author>
	<datestamp>1246554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a pretty common myth.
<br> <br>
It might hold for most symmetric key cryptography algorithms (such as AES, SHA, MD5, DES, etc) however there is a whole other branch of (admitidely mainly theoretical) cryptography which relies on provable security. I.e. formal reductions showing that breaking security of the scheme is at least as hard as solving some difficult underlying problem. For such schemes it's a lot more plausable that there may simply not be a poly-time algorithm which solves them. (Take the short vector problem of lattice based crypto for example. To date we don't even have a \_quantum\_ algorithm that solves it efficiently let alone a classical one. Yet there are schemes that are at least as hard to break as that problem is difficult to solve.)
<br> <br>
And of course then there is another branch of cryptography which considers information theoretic security. These are provably \_unconditionally\_ secure. (The most common example being the "one time pad".) For these algorithms, protocols, and applications as long as the under lying model is a good model of the real world there is simply no way to break security regardless of computing technology and future developments in algorithms.
<br> <br>
So no. Crypto is not just broken. Quite a lot of modern crypto is actually pretty secure. (Now whether it's practically efficient is a whole other new ball game of course, but then that wasn't the claim...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty common myth .
It might hold for most symmetric key cryptography algorithms ( such as AES , SHA , MD5 , DES , etc ) however there is a whole other branch of ( admitidely mainly theoretical ) cryptography which relies on provable security .
I.e. formal reductions showing that breaking security of the scheme is at least as hard as solving some difficult underlying problem .
For such schemes it 's a lot more plausable that there may simply not be a poly-time algorithm which solves them .
( Take the short vector problem of lattice based crypto for example .
To date we do n't even have a \ _quantum \ _ algorithm that solves it efficiently let alone a classical one .
Yet there are schemes that are at least as hard to break as that problem is difficult to solve .
) And of course then there is another branch of cryptography which considers information theoretic security .
These are provably \ _unconditionally \ _ secure .
( The most common example being the " one time pad " .
) For these algorithms , protocols , and applications as long as the under lying model is a good model of the real world there is simply no way to break security regardless of computing technology and future developments in algorithms .
So no .
Crypto is not just broken .
Quite a lot of modern crypto is actually pretty secure .
( Now whether it 's practically efficient is a whole other new ball game of course , but then that was n't the claim... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty common myth.
It might hold for most symmetric key cryptography algorithms (such as AES, SHA, MD5, DES, etc) however there is a whole other branch of (admitidely mainly theoretical) cryptography which relies on provable security.
I.e. formal reductions showing that breaking security of the scheme is at least as hard as solving some difficult underlying problem.
For such schemes it's a lot more plausable that there may simply not be a poly-time algorithm which solves them.
(Take the short vector problem of lattice based crypto for example.
To date we don't even have a \_quantum\_ algorithm that solves it efficiently let alone a classical one.
Yet there are schemes that are at least as hard to break as that problem is difficult to solve.
)
 
And of course then there is another branch of cryptography which considers information theoretic security.
These are provably \_unconditionally\_ secure.
(The most common example being the "one time pad".
) For these algorithms, protocols, and applications as long as the under lying model is a good model of the real world there is simply no way to break security regardless of computing technology and future developments in algorithms.
So no.
Crypto is not just broken.
Quite a lot of modern crypto is actually pretty secure.
(Now whether it's practically efficient is a whole other new ball game of course, but then that wasn't the claim...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</id>
	<title>2^119 is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who are asking "what's 2^119 complexity mean?"</p><p>2^64 is about as hard a problem as we can reasonably solve these days.<br>2^80 is about as hard a problem as we can unreasonably solve. I.e. we can do it, but it would take the budget of a country for several years to do.<br>A can of soda has about 2^83 molecules in it.<br>2^119 is still way beyond anything we can reasonably do, but isn't so hard that we can rule out any theoretical possibility of solving it.<br>A house sized computer built of solid nano-compute units, each a few hundred molecules on a side, with a cycle time of about 10 petahertz could do it in less than a lifetime.<br>Perhaps possible but I wouldn't worry about it.<br>2^256 is so hard that it may not even be theoretically possible to solve - or maybe you could if you're willing to destroy a few solar systems, and wait a few million years.<br>While cracking 2^256 may not be theoretically impossible, it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he's dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who are asking " what 's 2 ^ 119 complexity mean ?
" 2 ^ 64 is about as hard a problem as we can reasonably solve these days.2 ^ 80 is about as hard a problem as we can unreasonably solve .
I.e. we can do it , but it would take the budget of a country for several years to do.A can of soda has about 2 ^ 83 molecules in it.2 ^ 119 is still way beyond anything we can reasonably do , but is n't so hard that we can rule out any theoretical possibility of solving it.A house sized computer built of solid nano-compute units , each a few hundred molecules on a side , with a cycle time of about 10 petahertz could do it in less than a lifetime.Perhaps possible but I would n't worry about it.2 ^ 256 is so hard that it may not even be theoretically possible to solve - or maybe you could if you 're willing to destroy a few solar systems , and wait a few million years.While cracking 2 ^ 256 may not be theoretically impossible , it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he 's dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who are asking "what's 2^119 complexity mean?
"2^64 is about as hard a problem as we can reasonably solve these days.2^80 is about as hard a problem as we can unreasonably solve.
I.e. we can do it, but it would take the budget of a country for several years to do.A can of soda has about 2^83 molecules in it.2^119 is still way beyond anything we can reasonably do, but isn't so hard that we can rule out any theoretical possibility of solving it.A house sized computer built of solid nano-compute units, each a few hundred molecules on a side, with a cycle time of about 10 petahertz could do it in less than a lifetime.Perhaps possible but I wouldn't worry about it.2^256 is so hard that it may not even be theoretically possible to solve - or maybe you could if you're willing to destroy a few solar systems, and wait a few million years.While cracking 2^256 may not be theoretically impossible, it would be easier to look everywhere the information you want might be hidden - including inside the mind of your opponent - even if he's dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1246446960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things:</p><p>First, they are talking about AES-256.</p><p>Second, I find it useful to think about how much faster that is.  In this case, it means it is 2^137 times faster than a pure brute force attack, which certainly seems impressive.  Fortunately, as you mentioned, this is still far too difficult to be applied.</p><p>Just for fun, google this: 2^119 picoseconds in millenia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things : First , they are talking about AES-256.Second , I find it useful to think about how much faster that is .
In this case , it means it is 2 ^ 137 times faster than a pure brute force attack , which certainly seems impressive .
Fortunately , as you mentioned , this is still far too difficult to be applied.Just for fun , google this : 2 ^ 119 picoseconds in millenia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things:First, they are talking about AES-256.Second, I find it useful to think about how much faster that is.
In this case, it means it is 2^137 times faster than a pure brute force attack, which certainly seems impressive.
Fortunately, as you mentioned, this is still far too difficult to be applied.Just for fun, google this: 2^119 picoseconds in millenia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553085</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for you binary noobs without a calculator out there:</p><p>2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 = ~ 3,4028237 * 10^38 = ~ 340282.4 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers#The\_.22standard\_dictionary\_numbers.22" title="wikipedia.org">decillion</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>2^119 =     664,613,997,892,457,936,451,903,530,140,172,288 = ~ 6.64614   * 10^35 = ~    664.6 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers#The\_.22standard\_dictionary\_numbers.22" title="wikipedia.org">decillion</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>2^110 =       1,298,074,214,633,706,907,132,624,082,305,024 = ~ 1.2980742 * 10^33 = ~      1.3 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers#The\_.22standard\_dictionary\_numbers.22" title="wikipedia.org">decillion</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>So in the most basic words: AEO just now got 512 times simpler to crack. And they say they they will get it down to 262144 times simpler than it originally had been. (262144 = 512 * 512)<br>Which would be a huge improvement. But still, as you can see from the number behind the 2^110, it would be an incredibly large number of tries before you tried all combinations to this "lock".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Now if you wanted to know how long, you would have to multiply that huge number by the time it takes your target computer system, to try one key, and check if it worked.<br>The only thing that would "help" here, were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow\_tables" title="wikipedia.org">rainbow tables</a> [wikipedia.org]. But they would be so large, that we could not store them on this planet, or even solar system alone (from what I heard about the number of atoms being in it).</p><p>Now you might start to get a feeling for its security, even if you know nothing about cryptography at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for you binary noobs without a calculator out there : 2 ^ 128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 = ~ 3,4028237 * 10 ^ 38 = ~ 340282.4 decillion [ wikipedia.org ] 2 ^ 119 = 664,613,997,892,457,936,451,903,530,140,172,288 = ~ 6.64614 * 10 ^ 35 = ~ 664.6 decillion [ wikipedia.org ] 2 ^ 110 = 1,298,074,214,633,706,907,132,624,082,305,024 = ~ 1.2980742 * 10 ^ 33 = ~ 1.3 decillion [ wikipedia.org ] So in the most basic words : AEO just now got 512 times simpler to crack .
And they say they they will get it down to 262144 times simpler than it originally had been .
( 262144 = 512 * 512 ) Which would be a huge improvement .
But still , as you can see from the number behind the 2 ^ 110 , it would be an incredibly large number of tries before you tried all combinations to this " lock " .
: ) Now if you wanted to know how long , you would have to multiply that huge number by the time it takes your target computer system , to try one key , and check if it worked.The only thing that would " help " here , were rainbow tables [ wikipedia.org ] .
But they would be so large , that we could not store them on this planet , or even solar system alone ( from what I heard about the number of atoms being in it ) .Now you might start to get a feeling for its security , even if you know nothing about cryptography at all .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for you binary noobs without a calculator out there:2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 = ~ 3,4028237 * 10^38 = ~ 340282.4 decillion [wikipedia.org]2^119 =     664,613,997,892,457,936,451,903,530,140,172,288 = ~ 6.64614   * 10^35 = ~    664.6 decillion [wikipedia.org]2^110 =       1,298,074,214,633,706,907,132,624,082,305,024 = ~ 1.2980742 * 10^33 = ~      1.3 decillion [wikipedia.org]So in the most basic words: AEO just now got 512 times simpler to crack.
And they say they they will get it down to 262144 times simpler than it originally had been.
(262144 = 512 * 512)Which would be a huge improvement.
But still, as you can see from the number behind the 2^110, it would be an incredibly large number of tries before you tried all combinations to this "lock".
:)Now if you wanted to know how long, you would have to multiply that huge number by the time it takes your target computer system, to try one key, and check if it worked.The only thing that would "help" here, were rainbow tables [wikipedia.org].
But they would be so large, that we could not store them on this planet, or even solar system alone (from what I heard about the number of atoms being in it).Now you might start to get a feeling for its security, even if you know nothing about cryptography at all.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550479</id>
	<title>Improvement</title>
	<author>WaXHeLL</author>
	<datestamp>1246445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only a 0.3\% improvement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only a 0.3 \ % improvement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only a 0.3\% improvement!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550909</id>
	<title>Hello!!  Person with Key, meet Rubber Hose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Person with Key, meet rubber hose.<br>Rubber hose, meet person with key.</p><p>Guess how long that key will take to "break"?  Can you say SMACK !! children?  I thought so, children.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Person with Key , meet rubber hose.Rubber hose , meet person with key.Guess how long that key will take to " break " ?
Can you say SMACK ! !
children ? I thought so , children .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Person with Key, meet rubber hose.Rubber hose, meet person with key.Guess how long that key will take to "break"?
Can you say SMACK !!
children?  I thought so, children.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556397</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moore never said that, he said something about speed/price.

Computers may cost $0.00001 in 60 years time but they're unlikely to be 2^39 times faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moore never said that , he said something about speed/price .
Computers may cost $ 0.00001 in 60 years time but they 're unlikely to be 2 ^ 39 times faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moore never said that, he said something about speed/price.
Computers may cost $0.00001 in 60 years time but they're unlikely to be 2^39 times faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513</id>
	<title>Furthers my stand on crypto, which is: DON'T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crypto is broken.  It's not IF, but WHEN.  That's why crypto is pointless to use.  this is why I use open source, and even keep all doors unlocked.  It's pointless to try and protect propery, real or intellectual/imaginary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crypto is broken .
It 's not IF , but WHEN .
That 's why crypto is pointless to use .
this is why I use open source , and even keep all doors unlocked .
It 's pointless to try and protect propery , real or intellectual/imaginary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crypto is broken.
It's not IF, but WHEN.
That's why crypto is pointless to use.
this is why I use open source, and even keep all doors unlocked.
It's pointless to try and protect propery, real or intellectual/imaginary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551121</id>
	<title>Fixed SSL Link</title>
	<author>Mr. Sketch</author>
	<datestamp>1246448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason that SSL link to the paper uses the name of a server that doesn't have the SSL certificate so Firefox complains.  Replacing the hostname gives this link that Firefox doesn't complain about:<br><a href="https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki/uploads/1/1a/Aes-192-256.pdf" title="cryptolux.org">https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki/uploads/1/1a/Aes-192-256.pdf</a> [cryptolux.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason that SSL link to the paper uses the name of a server that does n't have the SSL certificate so Firefox complains .
Replacing the hostname gives this link that Firefox does n't complain about : https : //www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki/uploads/1/1a/Aes-192-256.pdf [ cryptolux.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason that SSL link to the paper uses the name of a server that doesn't have the SSL certificate so Firefox complains.
Replacing the hostname gives this link that Firefox doesn't complain about:https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki/uploads/1/1a/Aes-192-256.pdf [cryptolux.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552311</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one half of 2^120, but twice 2^118.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... also, 1 in 2^119 are the odds that each and every one of the first 2^4 people reading this got laid in the past 24 hours<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one half of 2 ^ 120 , but twice 2 ^ 118 .
... also , 1 in 2 ^ 119 are the odds that each and every one of the first 2 ^ 4 people reading this got laid in the past 24 hours ...Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one half of 2^120, but twice 2^118.
... also, 1 in 2^119 are the odds that each and every one of the first 2^4 people reading this got laid in the past 24 hours ...Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551261</id>
	<title>decrypting this disinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me decrypt this disinformation for y'all.  Namely:</p><blockquote><div><p>"better than brute force with a complexity of 2^119"</p></div></blockquote><p>If you lived a few days before this was discovered, you would expect "128 bits of security" in your AES.  But now you only get 119.  What's that extra 9 bits between friends?  That's just a factor of 512.  It means if a few weeks ago, someone would have had to pay $70 billion for hardware capable of decrypting your message within 600 days guaranteed (with an expected success time at the 300-day mark), now they only have to pay $136 million, obviously no big change.  Oh and</p><blockquote><div><p>"we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2^119 to about 2^110.5 data and time."</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is another 8.5 bits, or a further factor of 362, leaving the tab at $377,000 for the equipment to brute-force your data within 600 days (with the expected success time at the 300-day mark).  Really, it is hard to imagine how any organization might have $377,000 for such an activity but not $70 billion, so far as I can see this doesn't really change much of anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me decrypt this disinformation for y'all .
Namely : " better than brute force with a complexity of 2 ^ 119 " If you lived a few days before this was discovered , you would expect " 128 bits of security " in your AES .
But now you only get 119 .
What 's that extra 9 bits between friends ?
That 's just a factor of 512 .
It means if a few weeks ago , someone would have had to pay $ 70 billion for hardware capable of decrypting your message within 600 days guaranteed ( with an expected success time at the 300-day mark ) , now they only have to pay $ 136 million , obviously no big change .
Oh and " we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2 ^ 119 to about 2 ^ 110.5 data and time .
" Which is another 8.5 bits , or a further factor of 362 , leaving the tab at $ 377,000 for the equipment to brute-force your data within 600 days ( with the expected success time at the 300-day mark ) .
Really , it is hard to imagine how any organization might have $ 377,000 for such an activity but not $ 70 billion , so far as I can see this does n't really change much of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me decrypt this disinformation for y'all.
Namely:"better than brute force with a complexity of 2^119"If you lived a few days before this was discovered, you would expect "128 bits of security" in your AES.
But now you only get 119.
What's that extra 9 bits between friends?
That's just a factor of 512.
It means if a few weeks ago, someone would have had to pay $70 billion for hardware capable of decrypting your message within 600 days guaranteed (with an expected success time at the 300-day mark), now they only have to pay $136 million, obviously no big change.
Oh and"we think that the complexity of the attack on AES-256 can be lowered from 2^119 to about 2^110.5 data and time.
"Which is another 8.5 bits, or a further factor of 362, leaving the tab at $377,000 for the equipment to brute-force your data within 600 days (with the expected success time at the 300-day mark).
Really, it is hard to imagine how any organization might have $377,000 for such an activity but not $70 billion, so far as I can see this doesn't really change much of anything.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</id>
	<title>Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, this is interesting math, but I don't think our cryptographic scheme is in danger until quantum computers become a stable and reliable source of heavy computing.  Then we're all in trouble.  How do you create a key, when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing?  I haven't looked into it much, but I don't think anyone has found an answer yet.  <br> <br>
To my knowledge quantum cryptography is still limited to very close distances, while cracking a crypto key is obviously not affected by this limitation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is interesting math , but I do n't think our cryptographic scheme is in danger until quantum computers become a stable and reliable source of heavy computing .
Then we 're all in trouble .
How do you create a key , when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing ?
I have n't looked into it much , but I do n't think anyone has found an answer yet .
To my knowledge quantum cryptography is still limited to very close distances , while cracking a crypto key is obviously not affected by this limitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is interesting math, but I don't think our cryptographic scheme is in danger until quantum computers become a stable and reliable source of heavy computing.
Then we're all in trouble.
How do you create a key, when the entire large number method is made obsolete by quantum computing?
I haven't looked into it much, but I don't think anyone has found an answer yet.
To my knowledge quantum cryptography is still limited to very close distances, while cracking a crypto key is obviously not affected by this limitation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551789</id>
	<title>this a RELATED-KEY attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The usual threat model for a cipher is either a "chosen plaintext attack" (CPA) or a "chosen ciphertext attack" (CCA).  In both of those, you have a lot of plaintext-ciphertext pairs all encrypted under the same key, and your job is to use that info against the cipher.  Not necessarily to actually compute the key (which would totally destroy the cipher) but even to be able to infer anything about it statistically (for example, to have a better than random chance of guessing whether a new plaintext/ciphertext pair was encrypted with the same key).</p><p>This attack is a related-key attack, which traditionally means that you get to see the same plaintext encrypted under enormous numbers (like 2^119 in this case) of different but related keys, rather than under the same key (or a "small" number of keys like a few trillion).  This is a threat model that most ciphers aren't designed against and it's instead countered by designing the application to not rely on it.  For example, don't use the cipher as a hash function by using the plaintext as a key and encrypting some constant.  Properly designed crypto applications don't let attackers access the keys, and they generate their keys randomly rather than letting them be related.  I don't think related-key attack resistance was part of the specification given to entrants of the AES contest, and IIRC the AES standard doesn't claim such resistance.</p><p>Nonetheless, the designers of Rijndael (the cipher that is the basis of AES) designed Rijndael to be "ideal", which among other things Rijndael was supposed resist related-key attacks, which was above and beyond the AES requirements.</p><p>This new discovery finds that the AES cipher in fact does not meet Rijndael's design goals.  Rijndael's design goals, however, exceeded the requirements stated in the AES standardization process, and any applications using AES are supposed to only use the characteristics of AES stated in the standard.  So, even if this attack were of low enough complexity to be practical, it STILL should not affect valid AES applications, unless they are relying on characteristics that AES was never promised to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The usual threat model for a cipher is either a " chosen plaintext attack " ( CPA ) or a " chosen ciphertext attack " ( CCA ) .
In both of those , you have a lot of plaintext-ciphertext pairs all encrypted under the same key , and your job is to use that info against the cipher .
Not necessarily to actually compute the key ( which would totally destroy the cipher ) but even to be able to infer anything about it statistically ( for example , to have a better than random chance of guessing whether a new plaintext/ciphertext pair was encrypted with the same key ) .This attack is a related-key attack , which traditionally means that you get to see the same plaintext encrypted under enormous numbers ( like 2 ^ 119 in this case ) of different but related keys , rather than under the same key ( or a " small " number of keys like a few trillion ) .
This is a threat model that most ciphers are n't designed against and it 's instead countered by designing the application to not rely on it .
For example , do n't use the cipher as a hash function by using the plaintext as a key and encrypting some constant .
Properly designed crypto applications do n't let attackers access the keys , and they generate their keys randomly rather than letting them be related .
I do n't think related-key attack resistance was part of the specification given to entrants of the AES contest , and IIRC the AES standard does n't claim such resistance.Nonetheless , the designers of Rijndael ( the cipher that is the basis of AES ) designed Rijndael to be " ideal " , which among other things Rijndael was supposed resist related-key attacks , which was above and beyond the AES requirements.This new discovery finds that the AES cipher in fact does not meet Rijndael 's design goals .
Rijndael 's design goals , however , exceeded the requirements stated in the AES standardization process , and any applications using AES are supposed to only use the characteristics of AES stated in the standard .
So , even if this attack were of low enough complexity to be practical , it STILL should not affect valid AES applications , unless they are relying on characteristics that AES was never promised to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The usual threat model for a cipher is either a "chosen plaintext attack" (CPA) or a "chosen ciphertext attack" (CCA).
In both of those, you have a lot of plaintext-ciphertext pairs all encrypted under the same key, and your job is to use that info against the cipher.
Not necessarily to actually compute the key (which would totally destroy the cipher) but even to be able to infer anything about it statistically (for example, to have a better than random chance of guessing whether a new plaintext/ciphertext pair was encrypted with the same key).This attack is a related-key attack, which traditionally means that you get to see the same plaintext encrypted under enormous numbers (like 2^119 in this case) of different but related keys, rather than under the same key (or a "small" number of keys like a few trillion).
This is a threat model that most ciphers aren't designed against and it's instead countered by designing the application to not rely on it.
For example, don't use the cipher as a hash function by using the plaintext as a key and encrypting some constant.
Properly designed crypto applications don't let attackers access the keys, and they generate their keys randomly rather than letting them be related.
I don't think related-key attack resistance was part of the specification given to entrants of the AES contest, and IIRC the AES standard doesn't claim such resistance.Nonetheless, the designers of Rijndael (the cipher that is the basis of AES) designed Rijndael to be "ideal", which among other things Rijndael was supposed resist related-key attacks, which was above and beyond the AES requirements.This new discovery finds that the AES cipher in fact does not meet Rijndael's design goals.
Rijndael's design goals, however, exceeded the requirements stated in the AES standardization process, and any applications using AES are supposed to only use the characteristics of AES stated in the standard.
So, even if this attack were of low enough complexity to be practical, it STILL should not affect valid AES applications, unless they are relying on characteristics that AES was never promised to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555067</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, its not down from 2^256 to 2^118.</p><p>This is a related key attack, so due to birthday paradox, its down from 2^128 to 2^118, which is means "1024" times better.<br>But this is neither true since each of the 2^128 "simple" brute force rounds is much simple than each of 2^118 new attack rounds. In fact, the new attack may in practice be slower than brute force</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , its not down from 2 ^ 256 to 2 ^ 118.This is a related key attack , so due to birthday paradox , its down from 2 ^ 128 to 2 ^ 118 , which is means " 1024 " times better.But this is neither true since each of the 2 ^ 128 " simple " brute force rounds is much simple than each of 2 ^ 118 new attack rounds .
In fact , the new attack may in practice be slower than brute force</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, its not down from 2^256 to 2^118.This is a related key attack, so due to birthday paradox, its down from 2^128 to 2^118, which is means "1024" times better.But this is neither true since each of the 2^128 "simple" brute force rounds is much simple than each of 2^118 new attack rounds.
In fact, the new attack may in practice be slower than brute force</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555771</id>
	<title>FAQ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authors have a useful FAQ regarding the attack here: https://cryptolux.org/FAQ\_on\_the\_attacks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors have a useful FAQ regarding the attack here : https : //cryptolux.org/FAQ \ _on \ _the \ _attacks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors have a useful FAQ regarding the attack here: https://cryptolux.org/FAQ\_on\_the\_attacks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551005</id>
	<title>What about an AES 512 or 1024??</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if the size of the hash has anything to do with the package or the resultant file, but what about simply doubling (or greater) the hash?<br><br>I did try to read the article, but got a bit lost when I began to read stuff like, "A basic boomerang distinguisher [12] is applied to a cipher EK(&amp;#1;) which is<br>considered as a composition of two sub-ciphers: EK(1) = E1 2 E0. The &amp;#12;rst sub-cipher is supposed to have a di&amp;#11;erential &amp;#11; ! &amp;#12;, and the second one to have a..."<br><br>Man, it is hard being a PHB!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if the size of the hash has anything to do with the package or the resultant file , but what about simply doubling ( or greater ) the hash ? I did try to read the article , but got a bit lost when I began to read stuff like , " A basic boomerang distinguisher [ 12 ] is applied to a cipher EK (  ) which isconsidered as a composition of two sub-ciphers : EK ( 1 ) = E1 2 E0 .
The rst sub-cipher is supposed to have a di erential !
, and the second one to have a... " Man , it is hard being a PHB !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if the size of the hash has anything to do with the package or the resultant file, but what about simply doubling (or greater) the hash?I did try to read the article, but got a bit lost when I began to read stuff like, "A basic boomerang distinguisher [12] is applied to a cipher EK() which isconsidered as a composition of two sub-ciphers: EK(1) = E1 2 E0.
The rst sub-cipher is supposed to have a dierential  !
, and the second one to have a..."Man, it is hard being a PHB!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28582073</id>
	<title>2^128, not 2^256</title>
	<author>aphexer</author>
	<datestamp>1246740180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brute-forcing a n bit symmetric cipher like AES doesn't take O(2^n) steps to break worst-case, but it takes O(2^(n/2)) steps. So it's a reduction from 2^128 to 2^119 in the case of AES-256. Not from 2^256 to 2^119.</p><p>It takes 2^128 instead of 2^256 because of the birthday paradox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brute-forcing a n bit symmetric cipher like AES does n't take O ( 2 ^ n ) steps to break worst-case , but it takes O ( 2 ^ ( n/2 ) ) steps .
So it 's a reduction from 2 ^ 128 to 2 ^ 119 in the case of AES-256 .
Not from 2 ^ 256 to 2 ^ 119.It takes 2 ^ 128 instead of 2 ^ 256 because of the birthday paradox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brute-forcing a n bit symmetric cipher like AES doesn't take O(2^n) steps to break worst-case, but it takes O(2^(n/2)) steps.
So it's a reduction from 2^128 to 2^119 in the case of AES-256.
Not from 2^256 to 2^119.It takes 2^128 instead of 2^256 because of the birthday paradox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553083</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>Dolda2000</author>
	<datestamp>1246461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011</p></div><p>While you, on the other hand, would need to learn to capitalize and write proper sentences. And yes, I read that using neither a calculator nor an ASCII chart.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011While you , on the other hand , would need to learn to capitalize and write proper sentences .
And yes , I read that using neither a calculator nor an ASCII chart .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011While you, on the other hand, would need to learn to capitalize and write proper sentences.
And yes, I read that using neither a calculator nor an ASCII chart.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553229</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1246462200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, even if you brute force AES 128, wouldn't you only have a complexity of 2^64?</p><p>256 is still 360,000,000,000,000 times stronger than 128, even if they get it all the way down to the 2^110.5 complexity 256 will still be far far stronger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , even if you brute force AES 128 , would n't you only have a complexity of 2 ^ 64 ? 256 is still 360,000,000,000,000 times stronger than 128 , even if they get it all the way down to the 2 ^ 110.5 complexity 256 will still be far far stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, even if you brute force AES 128, wouldn't you only have a complexity of 2^64?256 is still 360,000,000,000,000 times stronger than 128, even if they get it all the way down to the 2^110.5 complexity 256 will still be far far stronger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1246447380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long. That means in order to "break AES" (in order to decrypt something you don't have the key to), all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works. That means you would have to try 2^128 different combinations, which is a lot.</p><p>What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2^119 combinations.</p></div><p>Pff.  Well if that's all they're claiming, then even I can do better.  Hint: don't guess composite numbers! The two factors you have to find are <i>prime</i>!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long .
That means in order to " break AES " ( in order to decrypt something you do n't have the key to ) , all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works .
That means you would have to try 2 ^ 128 different combinations , which is a lot.What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2 ^ 119 combinations.Pff .
Well if that 's all they 're claiming , then even I can do better .
Hint : do n't guess composite numbers !
The two factors you have to find are prime !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AES-128 uses keys which are 128 bits long.
That means in order to "break AES" (in order to decrypt something you don't have the key to), all you have to do is try all possible keys of length 128 until you find one that works.
That means you would have to try 2^128 different combinations, which is a lot.What these people have done is found some clever way where you can break AES trying only 2^119 combinations.Pff.
Well if that's all they're claiming, then even I can do better.
Hint: don't guess composite numbers!
The two factors you have to find are prime!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>a\_n\_d\_e\_r\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1246448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CPU power doubles about every 18 months (Moores Law) so every 3 years a new computor can decrypt 2 bits more in the same time frame.</p><p>Thus to get it down to 80 bits from 119 it will take 39 bits divided by 2 times 3 or in about 60 years the AES will become breakable.</p><p>However given that Moores law is starting to get hard to continue with - it might take smore time than that. By that time the new crypto standard will probably use 1024 bits to be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CPU power doubles about every 18 months ( Moores Law ) so every 3 years a new computor can decrypt 2 bits more in the same time frame.Thus to get it down to 80 bits from 119 it will take 39 bits divided by 2 times 3 or in about 60 years the AES will become breakable.However given that Moores law is starting to get hard to continue with - it might take smore time than that .
By that time the new crypto standard will probably use 1024 bits to be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPU power doubles about every 18 months (Moores Law) so every 3 years a new computor can decrypt 2 bits more in the same time frame.Thus to get it down to 80 bits from 119 it will take 39 bits divided by 2 times 3 or in about 60 years the AES will become breakable.However given that Moores law is starting to get hard to continue with - it might take smore time than that.
By that time the new crypto standard will probably use 1024 bits to be safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>a\_n\_d\_e\_r\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1246449300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the new theory lowers the time to break it with about 99.7\% if it before took 1 million years it now only takes 3000 years.</p><p>Remember for ever&#253; less bit it takes to decrypt - it halves the time it takes to break a cipher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the new theory lowers the time to break it with about 99.7 \ % if it before took 1 million years it now only takes 3000 years.Remember for ever   less bit it takes to decrypt - it halves the time it takes to break a cipher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the new theory lowers the time to break it with about 99.7\% if it before took 1 million years it now only takes 3000 years.Remember for everý less bit it takes to decrypt - it halves the time it takes to break a cipher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554641</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Computers</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some physics I know (I was one once...) that work on quantum computers. They don't think they will ever be faster at cracking than classic computers.
<br> <br>
There are 2 reasons.
<br> <br>
First a quantum computer construction complexity goes up to the power of qbits. ie a quantum computer with n qbits has construction complexity of O(2^n), so with Moores law in place the number of qbits goes up linearly with time... This is leaving out the extra qbits you need for error correcting with decoherence that makes adding qbits even harder.
<br> <br>
Second a 128 qbit quantum computer cannot efficiently simulate a 129 qbit computer. Thus to factor 1024 bit primes you need at least a 1024 qbit computer. This is in contrast to a classic computer where it can emulate larger internal register computer in polynomial time.
<br> <br>
There are other things to consider. They are not so good with classic encryption. ie cracking AES. In fact I don't think there is an algorithm to crack AES or other symmetric encryption methods. Also the algo is probably different for each type of block cipher. However I have not bothered to follow the literature on this.
<br> <br>
Quantum computers seem to trade a hard math problem with a hard construction problem.... Oh but note we don't know if factoring is hard (ie not in P). Ironically we also don't know that P!=NP, or if trap door functions exist. We just think they do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some physics I know ( I was one once... ) that work on quantum computers .
They do n't think they will ever be faster at cracking than classic computers .
There are 2 reasons .
First a quantum computer construction complexity goes up to the power of qbits .
ie a quantum computer with n qbits has construction complexity of O ( 2 ^ n ) , so with Moores law in place the number of qbits goes up linearly with time... This is leaving out the extra qbits you need for error correcting with decoherence that makes adding qbits even harder .
Second a 128 qbit quantum computer can not efficiently simulate a 129 qbit computer .
Thus to factor 1024 bit primes you need at least a 1024 qbit computer .
This is in contrast to a classic computer where it can emulate larger internal register computer in polynomial time .
There are other things to consider .
They are not so good with classic encryption .
ie cracking AES .
In fact I do n't think there is an algorithm to crack AES or other symmetric encryption methods .
Also the algo is probably different for each type of block cipher .
However I have not bothered to follow the literature on this .
Quantum computers seem to trade a hard math problem with a hard construction problem.... Oh but note we do n't know if factoring is hard ( ie not in P ) .
Ironically we also do n't know that P ! = NP , or if trap door functions exist .
We just think they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some physics I know (I was one once...) that work on quantum computers.
They don't think they will ever be faster at cracking than classic computers.
There are 2 reasons.
First a quantum computer construction complexity goes up to the power of qbits.
ie a quantum computer with n qbits has construction complexity of O(2^n), so with Moores law in place the number of qbits goes up linearly with time... This is leaving out the extra qbits you need for error correcting with decoherence that makes adding qbits even harder.
Second a 128 qbit quantum computer cannot efficiently simulate a 129 qbit computer.
Thus to factor 1024 bit primes you need at least a 1024 qbit computer.
This is in contrast to a classic computer where it can emulate larger internal register computer in polynomial time.
There are other things to consider.
They are not so good with classic encryption.
ie cracking AES.
In fact I don't think there is an algorithm to crack AES or other symmetric encryption methods.
Also the algo is probably different for each type of block cipher.
However I have not bothered to follow the literature on this.
Quantum computers seem to trade a hard math problem with a hard construction problem.... Oh but note we don't know if factoring is hard (ie not in P).
Ironically we also don't know that P!=NP, or if trap door functions exist.
We just think they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550689</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had a computer that could perform 7 libraries of congress per hogshead, it would take 4563 quintillion hectares to do the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs (per milliliter squared)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had a computer that could perform 7 libraries of congress per hogshead , it would take 4563 quintillion hectares to do the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs ( per milliliter squared )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had a computer that could perform 7 libraries of congress per hogshead, it would take 4563 quintillion hectares to do the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs (per milliliter squared)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28564947</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Calyth</author>
	<datestamp>1246531620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try RTFA. The attack is against AES-256, which although the attack is still theoretical, 2^119 is more than collapsing the keylength to less than half its original size.</p><p>That actually doesn't look too good, because as pointed out by Scheier, attacks are only going to get better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try RTFA .
The attack is against AES-256 , which although the attack is still theoretical , 2 ^ 119 is more than collapsing the keylength to less than half its original size.That actually does n't look too good , because as pointed out by Scheier , attacks are only going to get better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try RTFA.
The attack is against AES-256, which although the attack is still theoretical, 2^119 is more than collapsing the keylength to less than half its original size.That actually doesn't look too good, because as pointed out by Scheier, attacks are only going to get better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550787</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246446900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'm not particularly a math geek, but 2^10=1KB.  2^20=1MB.  2^30=1GB.  And so on.  So if you were storing 2^120 bits, it would be basically be a trillion trillion terabytes.  Is that right?  Someone feel free to check my math.
</p><p>I mean, that doesn't give an explanation of the problem, so it doesn't really answer your question.  But maybe it gives you an idea of scale?  I guess by lowering the complexity of the attack by 2^8.5 it means that an encryption key that would take you 300 years to crack, you might now be able to crack it in a year...?  I don't know.  I'm not an encryption expert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm not particularly a math geek , but 2 ^ 10 = 1KB .
2 ^ 20 = 1MB. 2 ^ 30 = 1GB .
And so on .
So if you were storing 2 ^ 120 bits , it would be basically be a trillion trillion terabytes .
Is that right ?
Someone feel free to check my math .
I mean , that does n't give an explanation of the problem , so it does n't really answer your question .
But maybe it gives you an idea of scale ?
I guess by lowering the complexity of the attack by 2 ^ 8.5 it means that an encryption key that would take you 300 years to crack , you might now be able to crack it in a year... ?
I do n't know .
I 'm not an encryption expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm not particularly a math geek, but 2^10=1KB.
2^20=1MB.  2^30=1GB.
And so on.
So if you were storing 2^120 bits, it would be basically be a trillion trillion terabytes.
Is that right?
Someone feel free to check my math.
I mean, that doesn't give an explanation of the problem, so it doesn't really answer your question.
But maybe it gives you an idea of scale?
I guess by lowering the complexity of the attack by 2^8.5 it means that an encryption key that would take you 300 years to crack, you might now be able to crack it in a year...?
I don't know.
I'm not an encryption expert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552145</id>
	<title>Regarding oh-shit-that's-a-big-number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ok, someone needs to check my math and logic because I'm basically asleep at the moment, but:</p><p>2^100.5 = 1.8e30<br>2^119 = 664613997892457936451903530140172288 = 6.6x10^35</p><p>In atoms:<br>Avogadro's number is 6x10^23.<br>1 mole of iron contains 6x10^23 Fe atoms, and has a mass of 55 grams. So, 2^119 atoms are 2^119/6^23 = 1e12 moles. This means that 2^119 atoms of iron would have a mass of 55 megatonnes. (1 tonne = 10^6g), which is (very roughly) the mass of a solid cube of iron 200 meters to the edge.<br>So, if you take a 200 m cube of iron, the number of atoms in that will be about 2^119. Which is pretty big.</p><p>The same math for 2^100.5 makes it roughly equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron only 3 m across.</p><p>Compare that, though, to 2^256:<br>2^256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 = 10^77.</p><p>This is equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron one light year (!) across.</p><p>So, from 2^256 to 2^119 and then to 2^100.5 are massive steps. But then again, bear in mind that 2^100.5 = 1.8x10^30 is still massive, so no worries as yet.</p><p>Unless I made a mistake. My formula from number of atoms to cube size is: ( numberOfAtoms/ (6e23 atoms per mole) * (55 g per mole) / (8 g per cubic cm)  ) ^ (1/3). Output in cm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , someone needs to check my math and logic because I 'm basically asleep at the moment , but : 2 ^ 100.5 = 1.8e302 ^ 119 = 664613997892457936451903530140172288 = 6.6x10 ^ 35In atoms : Avogadro 's number is 6x10 ^ 23.1 mole of iron contains 6x10 ^ 23 Fe atoms , and has a mass of 55 grams .
So , 2 ^ 119 atoms are 2 ^ 119/6 ^ 23 = 1e12 moles .
This means that 2 ^ 119 atoms of iron would have a mass of 55 megatonnes .
( 1 tonne = 10 ^ 6g ) , which is ( very roughly ) the mass of a solid cube of iron 200 meters to the edge.So , if you take a 200 m cube of iron , the number of atoms in that will be about 2 ^ 119 .
Which is pretty big.The same math for 2 ^ 100.5 makes it roughly equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron only 3 m across.Compare that , though , to 2 ^ 256 : 2 ^ 256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 = 10 ^ 77.This is equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron one light year ( !
) across.So , from 2 ^ 256 to 2 ^ 119 and then to 2 ^ 100.5 are massive steps .
But then again , bear in mind that 2 ^ 100.5 = 1.8x10 ^ 30 is still massive , so no worries as yet.Unless I made a mistake .
My formula from number of atoms to cube size is : ( numberOfAtoms/ ( 6e23 atoms per mole ) * ( 55 g per mole ) / ( 8 g per cubic cm ) ) ^ ( 1/3 ) .
Output in cm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, someone needs to check my math and logic because I'm basically asleep at the moment, but:2^100.5 = 1.8e302^119 = 664613997892457936451903530140172288 = 6.6x10^35In atoms:Avogadro's number is 6x10^23.1 mole of iron contains 6x10^23 Fe atoms, and has a mass of 55 grams.
So, 2^119 atoms are 2^119/6^23 = 1e12 moles.
This means that 2^119 atoms of iron would have a mass of 55 megatonnes.
(1 tonne = 10^6g), which is (very roughly) the mass of a solid cube of iron 200 meters to the edge.So, if you take a 200 m cube of iron, the number of atoms in that will be about 2^119.
Which is pretty big.The same math for 2^100.5 makes it roughly equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron only 3 m across.Compare that, though, to 2^256:2^256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 = 10^77.This is equal to the number of atoms in a cube of iron one light year (!
) across.So, from 2^256 to 2^119 and then to 2^100.5 are massive steps.
But then again, bear in mind that 2^100.5 = 1.8x10^30 is still massive, so no worries as yet.Unless I made a mistake.
My formula from number of atoms to cube size is: ( numberOfAtoms/ (6e23 atoms per mole) * (55 g per mole) / (8 g per cubic cm)  ) ^ (1/3).
Output in cm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555201</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1246528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they manage to make another discovery like this, it could become 9 years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they manage to make another discovery like this , it could become 9 years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they manage to make another discovery like this, it could become 9 years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550963</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>NAR8789</author>
	<datestamp>1246447740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and how, might I ask, are you generating your primes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and how , might I ask , are you generating your primes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and how, might I ask, are you generating your primes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550841</id>
	<title>Where's the Hyperbole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.'"</p></div><p>Wait a minute... where's the fear mongering, sensationalism and hyperbole? You call this reporting? I want my money back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES .
' " Wait a minute... where 's the fear mongering , sensationalism and hyperbole ?
You call this reporting ?
I want my money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but they pose no immediate threat for the real world applications that use AES.
'"Wait a minute... where's the fear mongering, sensationalism and hyperbole?
You call this reporting?
I want my money back.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556061</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>hotrodent</author>
	<datestamp>1246540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why wouldn't you just attack the passphrase?

Surely brute forcing even something like <i>733tPa55werd</i> is easier than brute forcing the actual key?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't you just attack the passphrase ?
Surely brute forcing even something like 733tPa55werd is easier than brute forcing the actual key ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't you just attack the passphrase?
Surely brute forcing even something like 733tPa55werd is easier than brute forcing the actual key?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550709</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity.</title>
	<author>sammykrupa</author>
	<datestamp>1246446660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well just look at how fast the numbers double:</p><p>1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576<br>2097152<br>4194304<br>8388608<br>16777216<br>33554432<br>67108864</p><p>2^30 = 1 073 741 824<br>2^60 = 1.1529215 &#195;-- 10^18</p><p>2^60 IS NOT one less than 2^61, it's HALF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well just look at how fast the numbers double : 1 , 2 , 4 , 8,16 , 32 , 64 , 128 , 256 , 512 , 1024 , 2048 , 4096 , 8192 , 16384 , 32768 , 65536 , 131072 , 262144 , 524288 , 10485762097152419430483886081677721633554432671088642 ^ 30 = 1 073 741 8242 ^ 60 = 1.1529215   -- 10 ^ 182 ^ 60 IS NOT one less than 2 ^ 61 , it 's HALF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well just look at how fast the numbers double:1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 10485762097152419430483886081677721633554432671088642^30 = 1 073 741 8242^60 = 1.1529215 Ã-- 10^182^60 IS NOT one less than 2^61, it's HALF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551213</id>
	<title>Re:Furthers my stand on crypto, which is: DON'T</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1246449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of cryptography is to protect stuff for a sufficiently long amount of time.</p><p>So you are right, its all about WHEN. WHEN IS the point, and is not pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of cryptography is to protect stuff for a sufficiently long amount of time.So you are right , its all about WHEN .
WHEN IS the point , and is not pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of cryptography is to protect stuff for a sufficiently long amount of time.So you are right, its all about WHEN.
WHEN IS the point, and is not pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509</id>
	<title>Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA refers (as does the summary) to complexity of 2^119, and possibly lowering it to 2^110.5.  Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me, who aren't cryptography specialists can understand what they're talking about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA refers ( as does the summary ) to complexity of 2 ^ 119 , and possibly lowering it to 2 ^ 110.5 .
Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me , who are n't cryptography specialists can understand what they 're talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA refers (as does the summary) to complexity of 2^119, and possibly lowering it to 2^110.5.
Could somebody rephrase that in a way that people like me, who aren't cryptography specialists can understand what they're talking about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28557149</id>
	<title>Re:Complexity</title>
	<author>digitrev</author>
	<datestamp>1246547100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;q=2\%5E119+/+(6700000000+*+1000000+*+1+THz)&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=" title="google.ca">3.1 years</a> [google.ca]
<br> <br>The electricity problem is trivial, and left to the reader to solve for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3.1 years [ google.ca ] The electricity problem is trivial , and left to the reader to solve for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.1 years [google.ca]
 The electricity problem is trivial, and left to the reader to solve for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554727</id>
	<title>Re:2^119 is...</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1246565640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but if you're lucky and pick the right key at first try, it would be solved almost instantly..</htmltext>
<tokenext>but if you 're lucky and pick the right key at first try , it would be solved almost instantly. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but if you're lucky and pick the right key at first try, it would be solved almost instantly..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28565153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28582073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28557149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28564947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2141226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551151
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550751
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28564947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550793
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555067
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551641
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556275
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551597
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550885
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551135
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550963
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551003
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28558067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552861
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28555231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28557149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28553229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28565153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28582073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2141226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28554727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28556061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28550909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28551057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2141226.28552863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
