night_petal@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 days agoMy Private Keylemmy.zipexternal-linkmessage-square38linkfedilinkarrow-up1460arrow-down18
arrow-up1452arrow-down1external-linkMy Private Keylemmy.zipnight_petal@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square38linkfedilink
minus-squareHawke@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·3 days agoI bet they used 0000000000…004 See, hundreds of digits long!
minus-squareprettybunnys@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down1·3 days agoI mean …. Yes, that would be secure. Sorta. It’s be dumb, and a pattern based attack could potentially solve it easily … but technically much more secure than 4
minus-squaresirprize@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 days agoI get what you mean, but no, it would not be secure. The private key in question is really used as a number in a calculation, not as a string of digits. Leading zeroes would just be ignored.
minus-squareprettybunnys@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 days agonot when it’s a representation of bits in a file The key itself being 00000000004 yah The key file being 0000000000000000000000……4 is a different story
I bet they used 0000000000…004
See, hundreds of digits long!
I mean …. Yes, that would be secure.
Sorta.
It’s be dumb, and a pattern based attack could potentially solve it easily … but technically much more secure than
4I get what you mean, but no, it would not be secure. The private key in question is really used as a number in a calculation, not as a string of digits. Leading zeroes would just be ignored.
not when it’s a representation of bits in a file
The key itself being 00000000004 yah
The key file being
0000000000000000000000……4 is a different story