Re: Surrogate factoring explained

From: JT (jt64_at_bredband.net)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: 25 Feb 2005 16:16:39 -0800

"ođin" <ođin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message news:<HrOdnbj_38Im3YLfRVn-hA@whidbeytel.com>...
> >> So basically I believe that RSA numbers are 'special'.
> >
> > When people say "special" they usually mean things like strong primes
> > or such...
>
>
> There is doubt by many that even an effort to use so called strong primes is
> of any use. Strong is a term that is relative to known factoring methods,
> which are still not good enough to cause worry with sufficient bit size and
> are not understood well enough to know exactly what makes them strong.
> Besides, even so called strong primes are not that special. Using A PRNG
> seems to be good enough.

This question may seem strange, how many bits is the biggest
consequent prime ever found, bigger or less then the RSA challenge.

If not is there a proof that the RSA challenge actually isn't a prime
itself?
Because if it is we will have a waist of time tryin to factor it ;)

JT