Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

> 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 Carmic

[Clips] MIT Real ID Meeting Postponed to December 5th, AND Homeland Security to Propose Regulations - Join the Discussion

--- 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 Regulatio

Re: RSA-640 factored

At 09:33 AM 11/9/2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is not reasonable, because the biggest constraint is memory, not > CPU. Inverting the matrix requires increasingly prohitive quantities > of RAM. Read the DJB hardware GNFS proposal. Can we deduct a co

Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

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 b

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

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

event in NYC: "The Secret World of Global Eavesdropping"

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] ---

Re: Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

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 bett

Re: Pseudorandom Number Generator in Ansi X9.17

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 si

Another Skype Study

Don't recall seeing this on the list: Enjoy, Aram Perez - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to

[Clips] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] Apple tries to patent 'tamper-resistant software']

--- 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: [E

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

>> 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

RE: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

-- 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

Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

>> 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 pr

FW: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin

(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.

FW: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

(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

FW: How broad is the SPEKE patent.

(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 Perl