On Friday 31 October 2014 at 18:29:21, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I agree that the FAQ is a bad place to present a chain of arguments and
> the wiki is the natural spot for it. My concern is that the FAQ and the
> wiki need to be kept in sync somehow, and I'm not going to be watching
> the wiki con
> yes, I think that the recurring debate demands that the arguments
> are made visible so they can be tested by readers.
The FAQ is discussed in public and changes are submitted to the
community for comment and review before I make any changes. So far, no
one on the list has raised a serious obje
Robert,
On Wednesday 29 October 2014 at 19:00:39, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Because this gets asked quite often, I've started to capture
> > some arguments of the debate how long RSAs could/should/can be
> > at http://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys
> I thought we largely addressed this in the FAQ, se
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 =
On 2014-10-29 22:30, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Technically, brute force is testing every *possible* value... not
values
that you know aren't going to work. Why test those?
Well, why not restrict ourselves to primes whose product equal the
modulus? I could solve any key in constant time that wa
> No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force.
Technically, brute force is testing every *possible* value... not values
that you know aren't going to work. Why test those?
If you're trying to factorize 2701, for instance, you can feel free to
skip dividing by 2 (doesn't end in an even numbe
> More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028
> ...
Either-or. RSA-1024's dangerously close to being brute-forceable, too.
We've already brute-forced RSA-768 and we're closing in on RSA-890. I
haven't looked into how well the general number field sieve
parallelizes, but
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
Nex
On 10/29/2014 at 3:22 PM, "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>
>> Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You
>> couldn't brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite
>> covers it 8-)
-
Surely Peter knows this too ;-)
More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older
> Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You
> couldn't brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite
> covers it 8-)
Sure you can. To brute-force a 128-bit RSA key would require you to
check every prime number between two and 10**19. There are in the
neighborhood of
Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You couldn't
brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite covers it 8-)
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <
> Because this gets asked quite often, I've started to capture
> some arguments of the debate how long RSAs could/should/can be
> at http://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys
I thought we largely addressed this in the FAQ, sections 11.1, 11.2,
11.3, 11.4 and 11.5.
Do we need to address it in more depth?
12 matches
Mail list logo
