Talk:538: Security

I was in a flea market one time when I saw a booth who sold wenches. They were priced starting at $2. There were even $5 wenches! Yes; I did this in response to this comic strip. No; I did not buy one. (I have no need to "crack" a computer. I just wanted to prove that there is a $5 wench.) Greyson (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (Oops... I forgot to log on... I feel... scared.) Greyson (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember the other comic, talking about how much does your time spent to pick up a penny cost? This applies here too! It's not just $5 for the wench, there is also the time of the guy who will be hitting with it! Although of course the wench is amortizable over multiple secret extraction sessions, unless it gets bent too much out of shape. 108.162.246.5 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I went to the flea market and bought a $5 wench, then used it to beat the password out of 2^5 nerds. I just wanted to prove that there is a $5 wench and that it's reasonable to amortize it over multiple extraction sessions. The wench is still in good shape, even to use as a wench. 108.162.215.115 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does everyone imagine that the "crypto nerd" will be a "him"? This gendered language is simply reinforcing the sexist stereotypes that serve as the cultural foundation for rape and other symptoms of this sexist worldview. I'm changing this to "him or her"... -- Vctr (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) The text of the comic refers to the cryptonerd being a him. Please check yourself before you wreck yourself. 108.162.221.99 18:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Same concept as 416: Zealous Autoconfig. Shanek (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What would happen if the owner of the computer used deniable cryptography with some decoy message? -- 173.245.48.141 08:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out by the wikipedia article, deniable cryptography might either fool the attackers, or make them keep beating you even after you give them the real password. 198.41.235.179 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely if he's encrypting his PC, he should be using something like 256-bit AES/Rijndael, as it's more secure? Walale12 (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the crypto "nerd"'s nerdiness. RSA is not generally used for disk encryption. It relies on the computation of large primes, a task infeasible for data of such size. Instead, AES is used. 108.162.250.163 13:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite often, disk encryption is done in two steps: Instead of generating key directly from passphrase, random symmetrical key is generated and used for actual encryption of whole disk, then encrypted by key generated from passphrase and stored ON the disk. That allows to change the passphrase without reencrypting whole disk. While the algorithm used for encrypting disk could be and often is AES, it's possible to use RSA for the second step. And breaking 4096bit RSA would still be quicker than breaking 256bit AES. -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)