31–40 of 152 posts
They only tested with numbers size of ~2^800, which is around 240 digits, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there exists usages of RSA with over 600 digits, so it'll still take a massively long amount of time to factor those numbers...
Typical key lengths for RSA these days are 2048 and 4096 bits. I don't know what that means for this paper, just happened to have those two key lengths off the top of my head.
This last sentence of the abstract, "This destroyes the RSA cryptosystem", does not appear on the abstract of the actual PDF (which also appears to be dated). How does it destroy RSA? Under what conditions? That claim sounds rather broad and definitely bold, to say the least.
^ Date on the pdf
They only tested with numbers size of ~2^800, which is around 240 digits, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there exists usages of RSA with over 600 digits, so it'll still take a massively long amount of time to factor those numbers...
Typical key lengths for RSA these days are 2048 and 4096 bits. I don't know what that means for this paper, just happened to have those two key lengths off the top of my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, if this really is fast prime factoring, we're all in a lot of trouble.
If that's the case it's funny to think... NSA could have sat on this for years. Though that would be a really hard secret to keep.
Can someone please correct me? We don't know polynomial CVP/SVP algorithms correct? In fact, isn't SVP an NP-Hard problem? Why would this "destroy" RSA?
Let's say you have an algorithm that can solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time with an N% success rate.
What value of N makes the algorithm useful in practice depends on the practicality of its use as an attack against the NP-hard problem; there is an inflection point whereat the speed of the attack outstrips the speed at which the cypher can change secrets.
Would someone competent in cryptography please explain this to a “regular” programmer?
Yeah, if this really is fast prime factoring, we're all in a lot of trouble.
The author of this paper is Claus P. Schnorr[1], of Schnorr signature fame. The paper has almost the same title as a 2017 draft paper[2] of his. The “This destroyes the RSA cryptosystem” quote is not in the linked paper abstract. This seems fishy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_P._Schnorr [2] https://www.math.uni-frankfurt.de/~dmst/research/papers/SVP9...
EDIT: that draft appears in clearer sources with the same spelling, disregard below... He also apparently misspelled(?) his own name. It's "Claus-Peter" (also on other publications), not "Claus Peter". agreed, seems odd.
The author of this paper is Claus P. Schnorr[1], of Schnorr signature fame. The paper has almost the same title as a 2017 draft paper[2] of his. The “This destroyes the RSA cryptosystem” quote is not in the linked paper abstract. This seems fishy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_P._Schnorr [2] https://www.math.uni-frankfurt.de/~dmst/research/papers/SVP9...
EDIT: that draft appears in clearer sources with the same spelling, disregard below... He also apparently misspelled(?) his own name. It's "Claus-Peter" (also on other publications), not "Claus Peter". agreed, seems odd.