Re: RSA encryption/decryption
From: Unruh (unruh-spam_at_physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 09/18/05
- Next message: Paul Leyland: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Previous message: Unruh: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- In reply to: Milan VXdgsvt: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Next in thread: Pubkeybreaker: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 18 Sep 2005 20:01:40 GMT
"Milan VXdgsvt" <milan_vxdgsvt@seznam.cz> writes:
>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.
Yes, by a HUGE amount. Factoring a 4096 bit number takes about 2^92 times
as much word as factoring a 512 bit number, not 2^3584 times as much time.
So yes, we are much much much faster than that (but certainly slower than
just 8 times as much time, yes.).
> Milan
- Next message: Paul Leyland: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Previous message: Unruh: "Re: Generating good quality 128bit random numbers"
- In reply to: Milan VXdgsvt: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Next in thread: Pubkeybreaker: "Re: RSA encryption/decryption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|