|
|
Re: Is factorization of big primeproducts a solved problem YET?
Posted:
Jan 11, 2013 11:59 AM
|
|
Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> writes:
> 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.
Psychopath
> 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.
He said "would", that's a conditional modal that implies a future
aspect. What has happened in the past is irrelevant.
> I did not say "it is necessary that p & q have the same length".
You imposed duty on their future actions, arrogantly obliging them to
make p & q 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.
Total non-sequitur. This is about some arbitrary factoring challenge,
nothing else.
> Next time, try comprehending what you read before you shoot your mouth
> off.
You first.
Phil
--
I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link
between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.
Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.
|
|
