|
|
Re: Is factorization of big primeproducts a solved problem YET?
Posted:
Jan 10, 2013 4:34 PM
|
|
On Jan 10, 11:28 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Jan 8, 8:46 am, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> > wrote:
> > > In article <kc6gg1$au...@dont-email.me>, David Bernier <david...@videotron.ca> writes:
> > > >On 01/04/2013 12:01 AM, JT wrote:
> > > >> Does the RSA challenges have a given time complexity of factoring the
> > > >> primeproduct, or did they have one that changed during resent years?
>
> > > >The RSA challenge numbers are still available somewhere.
> > > >The contests for prize money has been discontinued.
>
> > > >I think many remain unfactored, as far as the general
> > > >public knows, i.e. outside cryptologic agencies and
> > > >government cipher schools.
>
> > > >They would deliberately choose n = p*q, p, q odd primes
> > > >with the digit length of p and q being about half that
> > > >of the composite number `n'.
>
> > Not 'about half'. Exactly half.
>
<snip>
> Of course, in practice, there's no reason not to not chose numbers
> of exactly the same length, but that's different from that condition
> being an absolute necessity.
Idiot.
Please point out where I said that p and q being the same size was an
absolute necessity??? I simply said that the moduli were constructed
with p and q having the same bit length. I described THE WAY IT WAS
DONE.
I did not say "it is necessary that p & q have the same length".
Now, given all of this, there IS a reason why p & q have the same
length.
I will mention two words: "interoperability" and "standards". Read
e.g. Fips-140,
ISO-9796, IEEE-1363, ANSI-X9.31, etc.
Next time, try comprehending what you read before you shoot your mouth
off.
|
|
