Pubkeybreaker <email@example.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.
> 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.
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.