Hi Jonathan,
thanks for sending the config files. I could reproduce the error using
them. It turned out that the equality module doesn't handle the case of
the masked value c being zero. The latest code on viff.dk is now fixed.
Best regards,
Marcel
Jonathan Van den Schrieck wrote:
Dear Mr. K
Yes, indeed. Nice guess :-).
Jonathan
Le 10 avr. 2010 à 23:19, Sigurd Torkel Meldgaard a écrit :
>> Thank you for your idea wich is very helpful to me since I actually work
>> with p = 53.
>> Using this is much more efficient !
>
> Might I guess you are implementing a card game? ; )
>
> - Sig
> Thank you for your idea wich is very helpful to me since I actually work with
> p = 53.
> Using this is much more efficient !
Might I guess you are implementing a card game? ; )
- Sigurd
___
viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/)
viff-devel@viff.d
ok, my problem is solved, the error came from the config files. I generated new
ones and the error was gone.
I would like to thank everyone for their help in finding the solution,
especially Mr. Keller.
Jonathan
Le 8 avr. 2010 à 23:34, Marcel Keller a écrit :
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I can't reprod
Dear Mr. Meldgaard,
Thank you for your idea wich is very helpful to me since I actually work with p
= 53.
Using this is much more efficient !
Regards,
Jonathan
Le 9 avr. 2010 à 01:10, Sigurd Torkel Meldgaard a écrit :
> I know this is talking around the problem but:
>
> For very small moduli
I know this is talking around the problem but:
For very small moduli like yours, another protocol for equality is
actually simpler, better (no risk of failing) and faster (I guess):
raise (a-b) to n-1 (with square and multiply), and if this difference
was 0 you will get 0, otherwise you will get
Hi Jonathan,
I can't reproduce the error here. Can you send me your config files? The
error might be triggered by certain random numbers, which depend on
the PRSS keys. By the way, the error message is about the same every
time something goes wrong in a callback. This is because VIFF does no
Dear Ivan,
Yes I know about that. But 367 is 3 mod 4 so it should be OK. And the existing
protocol works with 367 only if the two numbers are not equal. If they are, I
got the error mentioned in my first message.
If I can solve the error in the existing protocol, I will be able to continue
my w
Dear Jonathan,
You cannot expect the protocol to work for primes that are 1 mod 4,
it is based on the fact that for primes p that are 3 mod 4, you can
deterministically
compute a square root mod p by raising to power (p+1)/4.
This does not work if p is 1 mod 4.
regards, Ivan
On 08/04/2010, a
Hello,
I am trying to modify the equality protocol to make it work for primes
congruent to 5 mod 8 (exists for Blum primes).
The problem is that I have an error with the original protocol. It works
perfectly with p = 211 for example. But for p = 367, it doesn't.
Here is the code I'm using to tes
10 matches
Mail list logo
