> I don't understand the last few posts here. In the paper linked to by > Samuel Neves: > > http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/042 > > Table 3, towards the top. (I read that as 2^53 steps.) > > So to me, the recent result is "we verified computationally that our > analysis is correct". > > Maybe my brain is too simple.
You're exactly right. (In your characterization of the result, not your brain.) I think it's actually a little less than 2^53, but close enough.
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
