On Wednesday 29 October 2014 22:18:13 Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 2014-10-29 21:49, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote: > > Surely Peter knows this too ;-) > > > > More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028 > > ... > > No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force. > > For p = 2^63 to 2^64-1 > For q = 2^63 to 2^64-1 > If p * q == n: > Break > Next > Next
If anything then I'd do
For p = 2^63 to 2^64-1
If n modulo p == 0:
Break
Next
q = n / p
which is O(n^(1/2)), but IMO still brute force (even in your strict
definition), while yours is O((n^(1/2)^2) = O(n). "brute force" doesn't
mean that you have to use the most naïve algorithm.
> I don't feel the method outlined by Rob is still brute force. That
> brute actually is using his brain. Possibly his brain resembles a
> sieve, but still :). Am I too strict?
Actually, that brute doesn't seem to be using his brain. If he'd use his
brain then he'd use he fists to brute force the secret out of you. ;-p
Regards,
Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
