From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography. 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes. So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits. And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s. (32-bit was
_never_ safe; during the 'crypto wars' period in the 1980s and 1990s,
when US and Europe tried to prevent spread of decent crypto,
the 'export' options in e.g. SSL used 40-bit _because_ "we can break
that".) Since 2010 at latest 128-bit is minimum,and now that people
are worried that quantum breaking will become practical, 256-bit is
more and more required.

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

dave_thompson_2@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography. 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes. So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits. And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s.

For encrypting data, sure. But that is not the only use of
cryptography. Popular door opening systems use 32-bit tokens.
This is inadequate and AFAIK this system was broken. AFAICS
64-bit system should be resonable safe (at least before time
when fast quantum computers get popular).

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.

But 64-bit chunks are likely to be most convenient.
--
Waldek Hebisch
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 16/09/2026 03:22, dave_thompson_2@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography. 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes. So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits. And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s. (32-bit was
_never_ safe; during the 'crypto wars' period in the 1980s and 1990s,
when US and Europe tried to prevent spread of decent crypto,
the 'export' options in e.g. SSL used 40-bit _because_ "we can break
that".) Since 2010 at latest 128-bit is minimum,and now that people
are worried that quantum breaking will become practical, 256-bit is
more and more required.

There is a vast amount of stuff related to cryptography or security for
which 32-bit is entirely fine. There are other things for which
8096-bit is a better choice. It all depends on what you are trying to protect, how attacks can work, and how much real entropy there is in the
key (rather than the key length).

Remember, access to your bank account is secured by a number that is not
even 14 bits - it's a 4-digit PIN. And that is secure for its purpose.

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.

A lot of popular cryptographic algorithms are optimised to work with
64-bit chunks, so they are convenient for efficient implementation. But
the algorithms can work happily (albeit slowly) on 8-bit computers.


People may be worried about quantum computers breaking current
encryption systems, but they should not be - there is no realistic
pathway towards quantum computers being physically or economically
viable for the task.

As the great philosopher Dara |o Briain said, "Zombies are at an all-time
low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. It doesn't
mean we have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies."

Fear of quantum computers breaking encryption may be high, but it's not something we should actually be worrying about.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 16/09/2026 08:24, David Brown wrote:

On 16/09/2026 03:22, dave_thompson_2@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography.-a 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes.-a So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits.-a And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s. (32-bit was
_never_ safe; during the 'crypto wars' period in the 1980s and 1990s,
when US and Europe tried to prevent spread of decent crypto,
the 'export' options in e.g. SSL used 40-bit _because_ "we can break
that".) Since 2010 at latest 128-bit is minimum,and now that people
are worried that quantum breaking will become practical, 256-bit is
more and more required.

There is a vast amount of stuff related to cryptography or security for which 32-bit is entirely fine.-a There are other things for which 8096-
bit is a better choice.-a It all depends on what you are trying to
protect, how attacks can work, and how much real entropy there is in the
key (rather than the key length).

Remember, access to your bank account is secured by a number that is not even 14 bits - it's a 4-digit PIN.-a And that is secure for its purpose.

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.

A lot of popular cryptographic algorithms are optimised to work with 64-
bit chunks, so they are convenient for efficient implementation.-a But
the algorithms can work happily (albeit slowly) on 8-bit computers.

People may be worried about quantum computers breaking current
encryption systems, but they should not be - there is no realistic
pathway towards quantum computers being physically or economically
viable for the task.

As the great philosopher Dara |o Briain said, "Zombies are at an all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high.-a It doesn't mean we have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies."

Fear of quantum computers breaking encryption may be high, but it's not something we should actually be worrying about.

No. But Quantum computing plus rogue super-AI plus a moronic and crooked
US president in charge might be.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 16/09/2026 11:03, bart wrote:

On 16/09/2026 08:24, David Brown wrote:

On 16/09/2026 03:22, dave_thompson_2@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography.-a 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes.-a So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits.-a And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s. (32-bit was
_never_ safe; during the 'crypto wars' period in the 1980s and 1990s,
when US and Europe tried to prevent spread of decent crypto,
the 'export' options in e.g. SSL used 40-bit _because_ "we can break
that".) Since 2010 at latest 128-bit is minimum,and now that people
are worried that quantum breaking will become practical, 256-bit is
more and more required.

There is a vast amount of stuff related to cryptography or security
for which 32-bit is entirely fine.-a There are other things for which
8096- bit is a better choice.-a It all depends on what you are trying
to protect, how attacks can work, and how much real entropy there is
in the key (rather than the key length).

Remember, access to your bank account is secured by a number that is
not even 14 bits - it's a 4-digit PIN.-a And that is secure for its
purpose.

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.

A lot of popular cryptographic algorithms are optimised to work with
64- bit chunks, so they are convenient for efficient implementation.
But the algorithms can work happily (albeit slowly) on 8-bit computers.


People may be worried about quantum computers breaking current
encryption systems, but they should not be - there is no realistic
pathway towards quantum computers being physically or economically
viable for the task.

As the great philosopher Dara |o Briain said, "Zombies are at an all-
time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high.-a It
doesn't mean we have to have government policies to deal with the fear
of zombies."

Fear of quantum computers breaking encryption may be high, but it's
not something we should actually be worrying about.

No. But Quantum computing plus rogue super-AI plus a moronic and crooked
US president in charge might be.

Skip the "quantum computing" part, and I agree.

The only thing quantum computers will ever be practical for is
simulating certain quantum effects. (That is, of course, interesting
for scientific research and I'm a big fan of scientific research.)
Remember, using quantum computers to break RSA and other cryptographic algorithms relies on things like Shor's algorithm for integer
factorisation, and the current record is factorising 15. (That's the
number 15, not a 15-bit number.) They had to make a custom design specifically for that number, and even then the "computer" wasn't sure
of the answer. Attempts to factorise 21 and 35 have failed so far.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 9/16/2026 12:24 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 16/09/2026 03:22, dave_thompson_2@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

..., So what sorts of things need a 64-bit [int] range?

...

3) Cryptography.-a 32-bit cryptographic keys are deemed inadequate
for most purposes.-a So, minimal reasonably safe cryptography needs
64-bits.-a And with spead of radio controlled devices (like garage
doors) there is increasing need for cryptography.

Not keys. 64-bit key was _barely_ adequate back when DES was
standardized, and has been unacceptable since the 1990s. (32-bit was
_never_ safe; during the 'crypto wars' period in the 1980s and 1990s,
when US and Europe tried to prevent spread of decent crypto,
the 'export' options in e.g. SSL used 40-bit _because_ "we can break
that".) Since 2010 at latest 128-bit is minimum,and now that people
are worried that quantum breaking will become practical, 256-bit is
more and more required.

There is a vast amount of stuff related to cryptography or security for which 32-bit is entirely fine.-a There are other things for which 8096-
bit is a better choice.-a It all depends on what you are trying to
protect, how attacks can work, and how much real entropy there is in the
key (rather than the key length).

Remember, access to your bank account is secured by a number that is not even 14 bits - it's a 4-digit PIN.-a And that is secure for its purpose.

But crypto does NOT operate on the whole key as a unit. Most
algorithms operate on either 32-bit or 64-bit chunks of data and the
same or sometimes less of the key.

A lot of popular cryptographic algorithms are optimised to work with 64-
bit chunks, so they are convenient for efficient implementation.-a But
the algorithms can work happily (albeit slowly) on 8-bit computers.

People may be worried about quantum computers breaking current
encryption systems, but they should not be - there is no realistic
pathway towards quantum computers being physically or economically
viable for the task.

As the great philosopher Dara |o Briain said, "Zombies are at an all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high.-a It doesn't mean we have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies."

Fear of quantum computers breaking encryption may be high, but it's not something we should actually be worrying about.

Plaintext encrypted with the default key:

Give Q# a go... ;^)

Link to my page that decrypts the ciphertext payload:

https://fractallife247.com/test/hmac_cipher/drmoron/?ct_hmac_cipher=dfba227617d7b480291f5d9ab8932eb92e916d22d45d328f2e4d87828ac9165a1987b7289994d26603f28e3358f4172c78b4d8cfdc23949ae436968599e436ed0a6cf3e3ace24e91eafe72e07f7ae047339f668992d269d6f825b031
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 10:03:28 +0100, bart wrote:

On 16/09/2026 08:24, David Brown wrote:

Fear of quantum computers breaking encryption may be high, but it's
not something we should actually be worrying about.

.
No. But Quantum computing plus rogue super-AI plus a moronic and
crooked US president in charge might be.

Quantum digital computing, as in performing basic number-theoretic
operations, let alone implementing ShorrCOs algorithm, remains just as
far beyond reach as it was 30 years ago.

Rogue super-AIs plus moronic and crooked political leaders of all
stripes cannot, between them, rewrite the laws of mathematics. If
there are weaknesses in our encryption mechanisms, they will probably
not lie in the encryption algorithms (which have undergone rigorous
review), but in other areas like elementary mistakes in
implementation. Or in weak sources of random numbers. In other words,
in places where we already know they are likely to be.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2