I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional
program code.
That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with...
Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of
PowerMod I don't think the required computation is trivial.
Although the
--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:43:07 -0500
To: Philodox Clips List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Clips] MIT Real ID Meeting Postponed to December 5th, AND Homeland
Security to Propose Regulations -
Hi,
The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of
the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is
still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical situations
or is there some better implementation available? What would
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Jeremiah Rogers wrote:
I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional
program code.
That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with...
Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of
PowerMod I don't think the
Apparently there's an event at The New School on November 17th
entitled The Secret World of Global Eavesdropping -- one of the
panel is John Young of Cryptome fame.
http://worldpolicy.org/calendar/2005/fall/05nov17.html
--
Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Terence Joseph wrote:
The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of
the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is
still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical situations
or is there some better
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:33:18AM +, Terence Joseph wrote:
Hi,
The Pseudorandom Number Generator specified in Ansi X9.17 used to be one of
the best PRNGs available if I am correct. I was just wondering if this is
still considered to be the case? Is it widely used in practical
Don't recall seeing this on the list: http://www.ossir.org/windows/
supports/2005/2005-11-07/EADS-CCR_Fabrice_Skype.pdf
Enjoy,
Aram Perez
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to
--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:00:24 -0500
To: Philodox Clips List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Clips] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] Apple tries to patent
'tamper-resistant software']
Reply-To: [EMAIL
I guess the small increase in efficiency would not be worth additional
program code.
That depends on the size of the numbers you're working with...
Considering the research that goes into fast implementations of
PowerMod I don't think the required computation is trivial.
Although the
--
From: Charlie Kaufman
From a legal perspective, they would
probably have a better chance with SRP, since Stanford
holds a patent and might be motivated to support the
challenge.
The vast majority of phishing attacks and other forms of man in the
middle attack seek to
Although the Carmichael numbers fool the Fermat test
(that is, $a^{n-1} = 1 (n)$) for *all* a, there are no such things for
the Miller-Rabin test: for any odd composite n at least 3/4 of a's
fail the test, that is if you made m MR tests with random a's then you
are mistaken with probability
(resending after bounce)
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Kaufman
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:11 PM
To: 'Travis H.'; 'cryptography@metzdowd.com'
Subject: RE: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin
Is that the distinction that makes
Miller-Rabin a stronger primality test?
Yes.
(resending after bounce)
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Kaufman
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:59 PM
To: 'James A. Donald'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent.
James A. Donald said:
Does SPEKE claim to patent any uses of
(resending after bounce)
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Kaufman
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:54 PM
To: 'Steven M. Bellovin'; James A. Donald
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent.
- Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Radia
15 matches
Mail list logo
