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.
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.