Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?
From: David Wagner (daw_at_taverner.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 10/17/05
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: Finding generator polynomial over GF(2^3)"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Jacobi symbols of higher degree"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Next in thread: Andrew Swallow: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply: Andrew Swallow: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:33:29 +0000 (UTC)
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>in many
>instances verification is computationally infeasible.
Can you give any examples?
When you say "computationally infeasible", do you really mean
infeasible in the sense that it would take, say, 2^80 cycles to
do the verification? Or do you just mean that the cost (in dollars,
or in person-hours) would be prohibitive in practice (i.e., so large
that it isn't economical)?
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: Finding generator polynomial over GF(2^3)"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Jacobi symbols of higher degree"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Next in thread: Andrew Swallow: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply: Andrew Swallow: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: How regularly is the GnuPG source code examined?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|