bram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what on earth was that claim of mathematically showing it was as strong
> as RSA about? If breaking it doesn't result in a break of RSA, it must
> have been of the typical voodoo hand-waving flavor.
Or an innocent error in the proof. That sort of thing happens.
It'll probably become clearer when more of the papers appear.
By the way, I misspelled William Whyte's name when I noted that he,
Michael Purser and Sarah Flannery broke the C-P system. Sorry.
>> That's not to denigrate Flannery's work: she started from the
>> assumption that the algorithm she'd been handed to work on was
>> O.K. and did some good work optimizing its implementation.
>
> That doesn't make the algorithm any more useful.
No, but don't take it personally. The world is richer for having
seen knapsack algorithms, despite the fact that they're regularly
broken. Maybe there's something salvageable here, and even if
there isn't, Rivest says Flannery knows her number theory, so
getting her found early also isn't a bad thing.
--
Jim Gillogly
22 Blotmath S.R. 1999, 03:28
12.19.6.12.10, 11 Oc 18 Zac, Seventh Lord of Night
