Re: RSA moduli sizes
- From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:30:43 +0100
Phil Carmody wrote:
Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
pubkeybreaker wrote:[SNIP - something sharing nothing in common with RSA]
[...]YOU're the one who is wrong and YOUR posts are mostly gibberish.
Why?
Just imagine for a second that RSA was a different algorithm.
But it isn't. To imagine so would be the thinking equivalent
of gibberish.
Precisely! I'm glad we finally agree on something.
If you had a 1024 bit PFE (Pink Flying Elephant) algorithm that worked
as described on my previous post, then although it claimed to accept a
integer value as a key, none of the "my key must be 2^1023 + some random
number between 0 and 2^1023-1, and a bunch of other restrictions, etc."
would apply.
These restrictions are particular to the way RSA works. That has been my
point since my first post on this thread and the whole bit string /
integer value discussion is just a red herring.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
.
- References:
- Re: RSA moduli sizes
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: RSA moduli sizes
- Prev by Date: Re: Why my code is slower and why it can't be significantly sped up.
- Next by Date: Re: do you get frustrated when people say random instead of pseudorandom?
- Previous by thread: Re: RSA moduli sizes
- Next by thread: Re: RSA moduli sizes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
