[Interest] TLS/SSL XML encryption security
roland at logikalsolutions.com
Tue Oct 8 03:08:27 CEST 2019
On 10/7/19 6:21 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 7 de outubro de 2019 07:06:07 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
>> We now
>> have the storage and computing power available to create the database or
>> 2^128 database tables if needed.
> Do you know how ludicrous this statement is?
> Let's say you had 128 bits for each of the 2^128 entries, with no overhead,
> and each bit weighed 1 picogram (a 8 GB RAM DIMM weighs 185 g, which is 21 ng/
> byte). You'll need a storage of 4.3 * 10^25 kg, or about 7.3 times the mass of
> the Earth.
> Let's say that creating such a table takes an average of 1 attosecond per
> entry, or one million entries per nanosecond. Note I'm saying your farm is
> producing 10^18 entries per second, reaching at least 1 exaflops, producing
> about 16 exabytes per second of data. You'll need 10 trillion years to
> The only way this is possible is if you significantly break the problem such
> that you don't need 2^128 entries. For example, 2^80 entries would weigh
> "only" 155 million tons and that's only 16 yottabytes of storage, taking only
> 14 days to run in that magic[*] farm, with magic connectivity and magic
> [*] After applying Clarke's Third Law.
Glad I could help you vent!
There was a time when a Gig of storage would occupy multiple floors of
the Sears Tower and the paper weight was unreal.
This Gorilla 128GB USB 3 thumb drive weighs almost exactly the same as
the Lexar 32GB 2.0 thumb drive (I didn't put them on the scale, just
hand balanced) yet one holds 4 times the other. They both appear to
weigh less than this LS-120 Super Floppy which only holds 120MEG.
The 6TB drive which just arrived I did put on the postage scale and it
weighed 22 ounces. According to this link the 12 TB weighs 1.46 lbs. or
almost the same, just a skooch over 23 ounces. The new 15TB is 660 grams
This 60TB RAID array does tip the scales at 22lbs though.
I cannot find a weight for the Nimbus 100TB
According to this undated (I *hate* that!) BBC Science article at some
point in time Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook combined had 1.2
million terabytes of storage. By your calculations, shouldn't putting
that much storage on one coast shifted the planet's orbit? <Grin>
As I said, the hackers don't need the entire thing. If they are sniffing
a CC processor handling a million transactions per day (not unreasonable
especially during back-to-school, on Saturday or during holiday shopping
At any rate, enough rows in the DB to achieve a 1% penetration rate
gives them 10,000 compromised credit cards via an automated process. A
tenth of a percent is 1,000. Not a bad haul.
Please keep in mind that what they need is the architecture and a
functional sampling. They don't need everything to achieve that.
Roland Hughes, President
More information about the Interest