[ Quoting <spa...@countryday.net> at 14:33 on Mar 7 in "RE: fermat primes an..." ] > > Its not about integer overflow, it's about the fact that F5 does not add to > > the security, but does use up a lot of CPU cycles. > > I'd like to study this issue more. Would you please provide a reference that > discusses your assertion that using an F5 public exponent does not add to the > security of RSA encryption vs. F4 or perhaps F0. > > With regard to CPU utilization, from the description of the modular > exponentiation algorithm at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_exponentiation#Right-to-left_binary_method, > it appears that the number of modular multiplications required for a modular > exponentiation is the total number of bits in the exponent plus the number of > one bits. This is 19 for an F4 exponent and 35 for F5. Given this, it's not > obvious to me that the CPU utilization differences are significant. If you > can point me to a reference that benchmarks this, that would be much > appreciated.
Well, go argue with Adam Langly in the bug report I submitted (and Paul quoted in this thread). grtz Miek
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
