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 Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Anonymous wrote:
These estimates are very helpful. Thanks for providing them. It seems
that, based on the factor base size derived from Bernstein's asymptotic
estimates, the machine is not feasible and would take thousands of years
to solve a matrix. If the 50 times
On Mon, 13 May 2002, bear wrote:
One thousand years = 10 iterations of Moore's law plus one year.
Call it 15-16 years? Or maybe 20-21 since Moore's seems to have
gotten slower lately?
Moore's law is about integration density. That has zero to do with
problem-specific system performance.
At 9:45 AM -0700 on 5/13/02, bear wrote:
One thousand years = 10 iterations of Moore's law plus one year.
Call it 15-16 years? Or maybe 20-21 since Moore's seems to have
gotten slower lately?
Moore himself said in an article in Forbes a few years ago that the cost of
fabs themselves would
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
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
Nicko van Someren writes:
I used the number 10^9 for the factor base size (compared to about
6*10^6 for the break of the 512 bit challenge) and 10^11 for the
weight of the matrix (compared to about 4*10^8 for RSA512). Again
these were guesses and they certainly could be out by an order of
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
Anonymous wrote:
Nicko van Someren writes:
The estimate
of the cost of construction I gave was some hundreds of
millions of dollars, a figure by which I still stand.
But what does that mean, to specify (and stand by) the cost of
construction of a factoring machine, without saying anything
Nicko writes:
[...] the Bernstein proposal [...] (among other things) it details
the conceptual design of a machine for computing kernels in a large,
sparse matrix. The design talks of the number of functional units
and the nature of the communication between these units. What I set
out to
- Forwarded message from Adam Back [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
To: Cryptography [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Adam Back [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: objectivity and factoring analysis
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:51:59 +0100
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd just like to make
Nicko van Someren writes:
The estimate
of the cost of construction I gave was some hundreds of
millions of dollars, a figure by which I still stand.
But what does that mean, to specify (and stand by) the cost of
construction of a factoring machine, without saying anything about how
fast it
I'd just like to make a few comments about the apparently unnoticed or
unstated conflicts of interest and bias in the analysis surrounding
Bernstein's proposal.
The following is not intended to trample on anyone's ego -- but I
think deserves saying.
- I'm not sure any of the respondents so far
18 matches
Mail list logo
