Re: RSA encryption/decryption
From: Milan VXdgsvt (milan_vxdgsvt_at_seznam.cz)
Date: 09/18/05
- Next message: study: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- Previous message: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Next in thread: Unruh: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Reply: Unruh: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Reply: Pubkeybreaker: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:19:56 +0000 (UTC)
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Milan VXdgsvt writes:
>
> > For Mxsmanic: current factoring algorithms are more effective than
> > O(log(N)). Increasing the length of the number to be factored by one
> > bit does not take 2x times longer anymore.
>
> The factoring time doesn't vary directly with the length of the number
> to be factored, either. If it did, RSA would have been dead and
> buried long ago, since factoring 4096-bit numbers would require only
> eight times as much time as factoring 512-bit numbers.
Was I've said is one bit means about 2 times the work, or less with a
better algorithm, but still somewhat close to that.
So factoring a 4096 bit number takes 2^(4096-512) times [the time to
factor a 512 bit number].
The point of my original post was we're faster than this, but certainly
not so much.
Milan
- Next message: study: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- Previous message: Carlos Moreno: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Next in thread: Unruh: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Reply: Unruh: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Reply: Pubkeybreaker: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
