Re: rsa - handwaving proofs

On Apr 9, 12:19 pm, "ping pong" <mosescua...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
For the single key case (as seen in ecb mode of symmetric encryption)
Someone made a valuable suggestion od presenting at least "hand waving
I thank them for that because it seems a useful approach.

In what follows I shall present some hand waving proof statements in lie of
some guidance
on a suitable low infrastructure c implementation of RSA public key
encryption function.
Let me try (it's o.k. if they prove to be meaningless - after all I am
groping in the mostly darkness).

 c = m'^e mod (p * q), n = p*q.

1.  Only p and q can be the cause of this capacity to be inverted.
Because all other parameters are provided and therefore could not be the
So no other parameters can be readily blamed for this property.

2. Let us say that neither p nor q are the cause of this invertible
c cannot be a function of p nor of q.
c would have no connection whatsoever with p or q or both p and q and
therfore no function could invert c uniquely.,

3.  p and q can be considered as the " generators" of the "noise" that
covers m.
Explicitly, "mod" (an amazing , and "devilish - to me - operator) when used
in conjunction with p and q
are the "generators" of the noise that covers m.


OK, now I'm mad at you because you ignored Tom's _elementary_ advice for
you not to top post. Do you even know what "top post" means? And then
you go and (top posting) rag at us ragging on you for your stupid ideas.

Oh dear, ping pong you’ve done it!, you have broken herd rule number,
lemme see, er it must be rule no. 76 – “posts shall not be topped
without permission of the committee.”

If you keep on like this kicking the rules into touch, you will lose
the solidarity of the herd that can turn politics into mathematics for
us and the alchemy that turns bull-dust into pearls of wisdom won’t
work for you like it does for us. Don’t you understand that the
razzamataz of membership of the herd is more important than the
veracity of mathematical proof ?

Do I hear echoes of “What’s that?”

Also, you are like the moth hypnotically circling the light bulb when
you keep on pursuing the impossible long after it becomes proven that
it can’t work now or ever but nobody is prepared to admit this, the
Emperor is stark naked but if we say so then we will lose our pen-
club, see? ( there's the makings of a Greek tregedy in this I think).

Only you of course can make the desision to call it a day on your
current research and history is full of succesful people who kept on
going i.e swimming against the tide of opinion and eventually emerging
triumphant. Good luck in that respect.

You are playing with mathematical fungi that can never become viable
cryptographic mushrooms in my view.

Mathematics as we know it is anathema to cryptography – I think you
should make that a realisation in your crypto psyche now today and
look now for new research areas.

Best Wishes – adacrypt.