Re: Question from an intelligent (?) layman
- From: "Tim Peters" <tim.one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:52:27 -0500
[Al]
I understand that one element of cryptography is to publish a large
number that is the product of two primes.
Two /large/ primes, not teensy primes. That's key.
It is believed impossible to factor that number (call it N).
Factoring is always possible "in theory". The point is that it's believed
to be so expensive (require so much time and computer resources) to factor N
that potential adversaries can't afford to do it, or at least that it will
take them so long that you'll no longer care about keeping your secret by
then (for example, if you encrypt a day order to buy some stock, you
probably wouldn't care if a competitor could decrypt it given a month of
intense effort -- in fact, you might be delighted to see them wasting their
time ;-)).
But can't one make a table of products of pimes and just compare the
key with values in the table? For example take the primes 2, 3, 5,
and 7:
N Primes
--- ---------
6 2*3
10 2*5
14 2*7
15 3*5
21 3*7
35 5*7
Now if N =21, one goes to the table and reads off the answer (3*7).
Is this wrong or am I missing something? I will appreciate any
comments.
Think about the size of the table if the primes each have, say, 100 decimal
digits. There are about 4.3*10^97 primes of that size, and about the square
of that many products of two primes of that size: 1.8*10^195 products.
That's far, far, far more than the estimated number of electrons in the
universe. Some of those products are actually easy to factor with current
methods (for example, if the difference between p and q is small, it's very
easy to factor p*q quickly), but the ones believed to be "hard to factor"
make up an overwhelming majority.
In any case, there's "not enough stuff" in the entire universe to store a
table so large.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Question from an intelligent (?) layman
- Next by Date: Re: Question from an intelligent (?) layman
- Previous by thread: Question from an intelligent (?) layman
- Next by thread: Re: Question from an intelligent (?) layman
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|