Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)
From: Paul Rubin (//phr.cx_at_NOSPAM.invalid)
Date: 12/21/03
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: ECB 1.0 beta 1"
- Previous message: Atom 'Smasher': "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- In reply to: Atom 'Smasher': "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 21 Dec 2003 04:12:18 -0800
Atom 'Smasher' <ngbz@fhfcvpvbhf.bet> writes:
> please read my original post until it makes sense, or at least enough sense
> so you we can clarify what part of it i'm not making clear. you don't
> understand what i'm talking about (which could be my failure to explain
> it), but at the same time you're telling me i'm wrong.
I'd have to have the book handy to completely make sense of your
original post, and I don't have it here. But yes, you're wrong, DH/EG
has been studied for many years, and it doesn't have a dumb error like
that. As far as anyone can tell, getting Bob's private key from Bob's
public key requires solving the discrete log problem. That actually
hasn't been proven, but if there's any other way to do it, it's very
difficult and complicated or else it would have been discovered by now.
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: ECB 1.0 beta 1"
- Previous message: Atom 'Smasher': "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- In reply to: Atom 'Smasher': "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: attack against ElGamal (and related algorithms)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|