[CentOS] what percent of time are there unpatched exploits against default config?

Fri Dec 30 17:07:13 UTC 2011
夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp>

On 12/31/2011 01:19 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 30 December 2011 19:40:55 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> [snip]
>> We can start a 10,000 computer botnet (or, more realistically, a 10m
>> computer botnet these days, and this is a technique used right now)
>> working on the problem of assembling a new index table that orders and
>> assigns every possible valid hash said algorithm can produce, and start
>> assigning values.
>> Essentially, we can move the computing cost up-front by assuming that we
>> indeed *do* have to try *every* possible password, which means computing
>> done 5 years ago applies to your brand new password today.
> [snip]
>> In short, keys, man, keys. Its not perfect, but it is much stronger than
>> passwords and in my experience FAR much less hassle.
> You are basically saying that, given enough resources, you can precalculate
> all hashes for all possible passwords in advance.
> Can the same be said for keys? Given enough resources, you could precalculate
> all possible public/private key combinations, right?
> Please don't get me wrong --- I'm not saying that the resources needed are
> equal (or even comparable) for the two cases.
> But theoretically, both keys and passwords rely on the assumption that the
> "inverse operation"  (be it calculating a password from a hash or factoring a
> large integer into primes) is too expensive to be feasible. But "given enough
> time and resources", you could in principle have prebuilt tables for both,
> right?
> Just asking... :-) ...while waiting for the first successful build of a quantum
> computer, which will fundamentally redefine all current concepts of security...
> ;-)

Yes, theoretically it is possible to precalculate the hashes of 
everything against everything. Seriously. Of course, the only groups 
with the current resources to actually build hash indexes against 
serious keys are governments, and there are limits there even.

The cost is what prevents this, which is why cryptographic security can 
never, ever sit still.

And you're right about quantum computing changing the game. In fact, it 
can change the game so much that physical and information security will 
once again become one and the same, period [1].

Considering this and how close we are to quantum computing, I find the 
"rush to the cloud" for business and personal data storage laugably 


1.Ok, there is actually a way around this which relies on quantum 
hashing, but I don't know the terms for this in English. It depends on 
the idea that you can only observe some articles of data a single time 
before the act of observation forces an alteration of state: In other 
words it does nothing to encrypt the data, but rather you can know 100% 
if the data has been intercepted at all. But its ridiculously finnicky 
right now because its so new, so don't expect this for a long time.