pay pal for silver?
Sort:
the book is "the code book" by simon singh ant the best book ever!
I got some paper and figured it wasn't the cesar switch and went I'm done
You people actually worked on this for a week?
When you try to solve problem a good first step is to see what it is you're dealing with. In this case it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard
Step two in this case would be to give up.
I don't trust wikipedia besides he gave us a couple words!
Why don't you trust wikipedia? Everything is provided with sources so it's easy to see the credability. Anyway this is from the wiki page
"A chosen-plaintext attack can break 8 rounds of 192- and 256-bit AES, and 7 rounds of 128-bit AES. (Ferguson et al, 2000)."
The wiki also tells you that the lowest ammount of rounds used is 10.
Well I guess the wiki could be wrong, good luck!
I will do another attempt at using my (possibly non-existent) physic powers to crack that code:
"Dear shadowslayer, I decided to write this paragraph because I thought it necessary to ensure you learn that 128-bit AES is unhackable. Although I could try debating on the subject, I decided that this is simpler. Of course, you aren't going to read this, because this code is unhackable. Good luck on your attempt, even though it won't help."
If you count 128-bit as one word, it has 59 words, and it begins with "Dear shadowslayer".
you know that quantum cryptography is unbreakable it's soo good the the goverment won't let us use it!!!
Quantum cryptography is very strong, but it's prohibitively expensive, and I'm not convinced that it improves real-world security in any meaningful way.
if it's the best then people will pay for it...
Buying a quantum cryptography solution is akin to spending your whole home security budget to replace your front door with a heavy steel security door rated to take a pro safe-cracker 4 hours to break through. It appeals to someone with more money than security sense. I agree, governments will thow lots of money at this solution! 
Actually, some companies have been giving quantum cryptography away for free in hopes of convincing more people that they need such a solution:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/10/switzerland_pro.html
Feb 19, 2008
0
#33
neneko wrote:
Why don't you trust wikipedia? Everything is provided with sources so it's easy to see the credability. Anyway this is from the wiki page
"A chosen-plaintext attack can break 8 rounds of 192- and 256-bit AES, and 7 rounds of 128-bit AES. (Ferguson et al, 2000)."
The wiki also tells you that the lowest ammount of rounds used is 10.
Well I guess the wiki could be wrong, good luck!
There was a Referee that made a bad decision against Scotland in a football game. The ref in question had a wikipedia entry created by Scotland fans, as you can imagine it was a touch inaccurate and not very pleasent. Anyhoo, it was up for a while before it got removed.
Also, there was a showbiz chap died here and some falseness insued: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/
Hopefully that works.
I still use it a damn lot like and openly quote it. Your right to say that all sourses can be checked but how does?
Slaters
You should have put a coma between ROLs+t101 and Sy4qWnn. Grammar is important you know :)