Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?
From: Adam O'Brien (adamobrien54321_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 05/19/03
- Next message: Vedat Hallac: "Re: Public-Key Key Exchange based on Parameterized Permutations"
- Previous message: Brian Gladman: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 19 May 2003 14:25:13 -0700
>
> I'd hardly call an attack that uses less than the entire search space
> "brute force". In fact you can trivially break an RSA key in n^(1/4)
> time using a few line algorithm.
>
> a = b = 1
> for (;;) {
> a = (a^2 + 1) mod n
> b = (b^2 + 1)^2 + 1 mod n
> if gcd(b-a, n) != 0,1 then it divides n
> }
>
> That's the pollard-rho algorithm in pseudo-C source. It won't always
> succeed but when it does it requires O(p^1/2) time to find a factor p of
> n. In this case p ~ n^1/2 which means it requires n^(1/4) time. Of
> course when n = 2^1024 [e.g. a 1024-bit rsa key] this takes 2^256 time
> which is a tad on the long side.
>
> My point being is that brute force attacks aren't used against
> algorithms like DH and RSA [or ECC for that matter].
>
> Tom
I was careful to always use quote marks around 'brute force'. I agree
that it's odd to characterise sophisticated algorithms like GNFS as
'brute force' but I think the term is useful.
For symmetric ciphers a necessary condition for a cryptanalysis being
worthwhile is that it requires less time/space/text than 'brute
force'.
There is a parallel position for asymmetric ciphers. An attack which
'breaks' RSA quicker than factoring is cryptanalysis. An attack which
improves on factoring algorithms is maths.
Adam
- Next message: Vedat Hallac: "Re: Public-Key Key Exchange based on Parameterized Permutations"
- Previous message: Brian Gladman: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: asymmetric vs symmetric ciphers - block size?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|