Wei Dai writes:
Using a factor base size of 10^9, in the relationship finding phase you
would have to check the smoothness of 2^89 numbers, each around 46 bits
long. (See Frog3's analysis posted at
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40wasabisystems.com/msg01833.html.
Those numbers
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 at 17:36:29 -0700, Wei Dai wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:37:09AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
For about $200 you can buy a 1000 MIPS CPU, and the memory needed for
sieving is probably another couple of hundred dollars. So call it $500
to get a computer that can sieve
At 08:52 AM 04/24/2002 +0800, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
In particular, none of the naysayers explained me clearly why it should be
reasonable to use 256-bit ciphers like AES with 1024-bit PK keypairs. Even
before Bernstein's papers it was widely accepted that bruteforcing a 256-bit
cipher requires
At 05:52 PM 4/23/2002 Tuesday, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
[...] And if the reason for the 256 bits is the possible deployment,
sometimes in the future, of quantum computers, well in that case we should
stop using PK cryptography altogether.
Hi Enzo!
Disclaimer: I am not a quantum mechanic, and I
Sorry, there's a mistake in my post, which makes the relationship finding
phase look easier than it actually is. BTW, why did it take 5 days for
that post to go through?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:30:26PM -0700, Wei Dai wrote:
Using a factor base size of 10^9, in the relationship finding phase
Wei Dai writes:
Using a factor base size of 10^9, in the relationship finding phase you
would have to check the smoothness of 2^89 numbers, each around 46 bits
long. (See Frog3's analysis posted at
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40wasabisystems.com/msg01833.html.
Those numbers
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:37:09AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
This is probably not the right way to approach the problem. Bernstein's
relation-finding proposal to directly use ECM on each value, while
asymptotically superior to conventional sieving, is unlikely to be
cost-effective for 1024 bit
I have one other question about the panel analysis. Why did it focus only
on the linear algebra part of the NFS algorithm? I would like to know,
given the same assumption on the factor base size (10^9), how much would
it cost to build a machine that can perform the relationship finding phase
Lucky Green writes:
Given how panels are assembled and the role they fulfill, I thought it
would be understood that when one writes that certain results came out
of a panel that this does not imply that each panelist performed the
same calculations. But rather that that the information gained
Further to Lucky's comments: in the last few days I have discussed keysize
issues with a few people on a couple of mailing lists, and I have
encountered a hostility to large keysizes of which, frankly, I don't
understand the reasons. On the client side at least, performance is not an
issue: PGP
Enzo wrote:
Further to Lucky's comments: in the last few days I have
discussed keysize issues with a few people on a couple of
mailing lists, and I have encountered a hostility to large
keysizes of which, frankly, I don't understand the reasons.
On the client side at least, performance
Anonymous wrote (quoting Adam):
Adam Back wrote:
The mocking tone of recent posts about Lucky's call seems quite
misplaced given the checkered bias and questionable
authority of the
above conflicting claims we've seen quoted.
No, Lucky made a few big mistakes. First, he invoked Ian
12 matches
Mail list logo
