 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Two prime numbers for you
3347807169895689878604416984821269081770479498371376856891
2431388982883793878002287614711652531743087737814467999489
3674604366679959042824463379962795263227915816434308764267
6032283815739666511279233373417143396810270092798736308917
As, of course, you know they are the prime factors of
1230186684530117755130494958384962720772853569595334792197
3224521517264005072636575187452021997864693899564749427740
6384592519255732630345373154826850791702612214291346167042
9214311602221240479274737794080665351419597459856902143413
...which again as you know, is RSA-768
See http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/006.pdf for details of the method
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvy pbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2010 14:49, Doctor John wrote:
> Two prime numbers for you
>
> 3347807169895689878604416984821269081770479498371376856891
> 2431388982883793878002287614711652531743087737814467999489
>
> 3674604366679959042824463379962795263227915816434308764267
> 6032283815739666511279233373417143396810270092798736308917
>
> As, of course, you know they are the prime factors of
>
> 1230186684530117755130494958384962720772853569595334792197
> 3224521517264005072636575187452021997864693899564749427740
> 6384592519255732630345373154826850791702612214291346167042
> 9214311602221240479274737794080665351419597459856902143413
>
> ...which again as you know, is RSA-768
>
> See http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/006.pdf for details of the method
I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>
> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
I hadn't actually noticed that ...
<checking>
...you're joking, aren't you?
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2010 16:12, Doctor John wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
>
> I hadn't actually noticed that ...
>
> <checking>
>
> ...you're joking, aren't you?
I don't think you can create such graphics with an ordinary package like
Excel or SPSS. So, yes I might be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 17-1-2010 16:12, Doctor John wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
>>
>> I hadn't actually noticed that ...
>>
>> <checking>
>>
>> ...you're joking, aren't you?
>
> I don't think you can create such graphics with an ordinary package like
> Excel or SPSS. So, yes I might be.
I don't get your sense of humor, but I guess the reciprocal is true. :P
in any case, it looks more like a scan from a manually-drawn chart than
something generated on PC.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> See http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/006.pdf for details of the method
*wooosh*
That was the sound of most of the paper flying straight over my head.
About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people
are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer
hardware. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people
> are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer
> hardware. o_O
good thing it is researchers spending two years and a half of many
hundreds of machines rather than thieves. ^^;
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>
>> I particularly like it that they used a ray-tracer to produce figure 1.
>
> I hadn't actually noticed that ...
>
> <checking>
>
> ...you're joking, aren't you?
Hahaha wtf?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> About the only thing I _did_ understand is that whoever these people
>> are, they somehow have access to some pretty futuristic computer
>> hardware. o_O
>
> good thing it is researchers spending two years and a half of many
> hundreds of machines rather than thieves. ^^;
Heh, good thing I typically use 4,096 bits for an RSA key. (Honestly, as
far as I can tell, there is no detectable difference in speed at all...
But it's going to make one hell of a difference to anybody bored enough
to want to attack a key that belongs to *me* of all people.)
I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the
certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the
encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade
encryption"??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
> I just visited a random website that uses HTTPS, and it seems all the
> certificates are RSA 2,048 bits. Which is interesting, because the
> encryption itself is just RC4 (128 bits). And this is "high-grade
> encryption"??
The purpose of the https is mainly authentication.
Encryption using RC4 is weak anyway, and unpublished (STO: bad!)
RC4 is just quick enough to not bother too much a server.
the 128 bits of the RC4 key are used to generate a pseudo-random bit
sequence, and applying the output to XOR.
It might stop your child from eavesdropping, but that pretty all.
For instance, it is used in Wep (wifi)... and wep-keybreaker are everywhere.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
