New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Ah, I read "NSA - and no one else - can currently break RSA" as "no one can currently break RSA, not even the NSA", but really it means "NSA can currently break RSA, but no one else can"; I'm assuming based on context that William meant no one not even the NSA.
Ahhhh. I read it as "only NSA can"
Yeah I mean that's what his sentence actually means, but based on context William probably meant to say something else; guess we'll find out soon.
Why not?
I never said that - i said the NSA CANNOT crack RSA.
Read up yourself - Shors algorithm, which is well studied by many universities and experts worldwide, does NOT run on a normal CPU/GPU - You NEED a QC WITH quantum entanglement for it (you CAN run it on 1 Qubit but it is slow as shit).
Yes, they would have either sold the technology or the US government (which, after all, controls the NSA) would have - a real QC with Qubit entanglement (at more than 5 Qubits, which was designed by the Austrian University of Innsbruck) would give ENOURMOUS (like, BILLION FOLD INCREASE) advantages in any scientific field from cracking encryption methods via medical applications (i.e. simulating cells) to AI (running algorithms that would be able to pass the Turing test). It would make zero sense to keep this technology to the NSA only if many other US gov agencies can benefit from it - If they would have this technology we would know it by now, after Snowden and other leaks.
You said "NSA - and no one else - can currently break RSA", which means "NSA can currently break RSA, but nobody else can". Thus the confusion.
English sucks
That was the problematic point. I read it inversely ("ony nsa can and no one else").
Sorry, i forgot the "no" in front - I can see now how that was confusing. Sorry.
For simplicity as basically one (long) line: not the NSA and no one else can currently crack RSA - other algorithms and RNGs have built in exploits (or rather "weak points") which can never be 100% excluded but are extremely unlikely for RSA (as the source is opensource and was verified multiple times, especially heavily after the Snowden leaks) - If we assume that the RSA (with a key with high enough bits) algorithm is fool proof, which in this scenario is very likely, it would require a QC running Shors algorithm to solve a Public>Private keypair which is currently unlikely simply because this technology would be such an extreme advancement that no one would be able to keep it secret. It would be similar to detecting foreign life in the universe and keep it secret for a few dollars profit even if they offer to solve all the worlds problems for free, it simply makes not much sense on a global scale as a public release (or at least acknowledgement and running US based QCs without disclosing the technology behind it) would advance the world far more than keeping it private to decrypt some RSA keys (which for a real QC would be a peanut work, it can do far more than that).
That is just wrong. RSA can be cracked efficiently by any algorithm solving the discrete logarithm problem efficiently (i.e. in PTIME). As far as we know not even the NSA has such an algorithm but we can't be absolutely certain.
-
this site is really for vps than email hosting
IIRC (I'm by no means a math expert, neither in theorethical design nor in real math) an algorithm that only exists in theory (and not even far there) - Shors algorithm is reality, we just have nothing to run it efficiently (Dwave 1/2 cannot run it, even if they have "proven" entanglement (some Swiss university studied that) as it's not a full mesh, only the Qubit next to it, which only gives it a 1x1/1x2 layout).
If we go by theory like this anything could be solved in some way or the other, but many solutions would cause a partly new concept of math in itself.
Thanks for the physics lesson. But can we get back to email host providers!
I just want privacy and security with a provider. Nothing shady or bad.
Sounds like someone is a by-the-books rookie.
Several providers have been mentioned. You need to explain what's wrong with them, otherwise we don't know what you're looking for.
Also you can get more privacy by hosting e-mail on your own platform.
I am looking for a provider committed to privacy first and security second.
I know most of the offshore email providers but none of them do it for me.
I would like to add I have accounts at basically every offshore email provider.
I am looking for a provider who is not in the 5 eyes and has good privacy record.
Budget is around $20 a month. But I can stretch it to $30 if the provider is the one.
I am looking to host my own domains email. not sign up for user account. If that helps.
No one? I'm sure there would be other options!
I guess I will go with someone like countermail.com who are based in Sweden.
They offer your own domain for $10 on top of $59 a year. Unlimited aliases too.
Only problem is they use a java applet for sign in. To me that's a security risk!
As mentioned above, your options would increase drastically if you are comfortable hosting the email server yourself.
I would host it myself but I have no idea how to do that. Any guides around about that?
Not a guide, but this is pretty easy to setup: https://mailinabox.email/
https://tech.tiq.cc/2014/02/how-to-set-up-an-email-server-with-postfix-and-dovecot-without-mysql-on-debian-7/
Copy/paste gets you started with a minimal setup, if you want to understand how it works and extend it yourself (e.g. add spamassassin, DKIM, anything you want..). A web panel is as easy as uploading Squirrelmail to a web server with PHP and entering the IMAP information in the configuration file. (at least as far as I remember)
There are packages that do it all for you, such as VestaCP and iRedMail. If you want to configure everything on your own line by line, Ars Technica published a few articles a while ago that serve as a good tutorial:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/how-to-run-your-own-e-mail-server-with-your-own-domain-part-1/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/taking-e-mail-back-part-2-arming-your-server-with-postfix-dovecot/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/taking-e-mail-back-part-3-fortifying-your-box-against-spammers/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/taking-e-mail-back-part-4-the-finale-with-webmail-everything-after/
Squirrelmail can be set up with no SQL backend?
Can anyone recommend an email hosting in Europe and not the USA? I want to use mxroute but don't want to host in USA.
Was thinking about setting one up some time ago, but never got round to it. I like protonmail.ch if you don't need your own domain. Other than that there's http://www.eumx.net/services.php which sounds like a European company, but I'm not sure where they keep their servers.
Seems to be Hungary.
Some servers in Germany as well if one is to believe:
http://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=70693
Pretty sure that it just logs into IMAP with the user and password you provided, so no database needed. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong
You might find CounterMail suits you
Hushmail?