On Nov 2, 2007 10:52 AM, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new OpenPGP standard has been published. It was assigned RFC
> number 4880 (someone at the IETF has a sense of humor):
Is there an FAQ or other document which highlights only the changes
and improvements since 2440? The output o
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> Apparently P and NP doesn't mean the same to you and me.
P: the set of all decision problems that can be solved in polynomial
time on a deterministic Turing machine.
NP: the set of all decision problems that can be solved in polynomial
time on a nondeterminis
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> A P-problem? Really?! Factoring primes is a polynomal problem nowadays?
> Are you SURE about that?
People who do not know what P stands for should not attempt to whap
other people around with it.
P is shorthand for deterministic polynomial time. NP is
nondeterminist
On 11/2/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> >> Factoring prime numbers is most definitely in P.
> >
> > Hold on. Earlier you say "Factoring is known to be in NP". P is much
> > smaller. I'm not familiar to the latest outcomes. So what do you mean?
>
> If
Sven Radde wrote:
> In fact, some mathematician has proven that factoring is a polynomial
> problem, IIRC.
Well, we know it's in NP, since polytime verification is possible; and
there are strong arguments that it cannot be NP-HARD, because then it
would exist in both NP and Co-NP, which would lead
On 11/2/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A good first-order approximation for the number of primes with a certain
> number of bits is given by the formula:
>
> X = 2**number of bits
> Y = 2**(number of bits - 1)
>
> (X ln Y - Y ln X) / ((X ln Y) * (Y ln X))
Thanks. Though I
On 11/2/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> > A P-problem? Really?! Factoring primes is a polynomal problem nowadays?
> > Are you SURE about that?
>
> Factoring is known to be in NP. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to say
> that it's a polynomial problem
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> > Factoring prime numbers is most definitely in P.
>
> Hold on. Earlier you say "Factoring is known to be in NP". P is much
> smaller. I'm not familiar to the latest outcomes. So what do you mean?
If you have a proof that P is much smaller than NP, a million bucks is
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> A keyspace of 1024 bits is double that of 1023 bits. Prime numbers
s/is double/is not double/
My typo, sorry.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 11/2/07, Sven Radde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander W. Janssen schrieb:
> >> In fact, some mathematician has proven that factoring is a polynomial
> >> problem, IIRC.
> >
> > A P-problem? Really?! Factoring primes is a polynomal problem nowadays?
> > Are you SURE about that?
> I think, I
Alexander W. Janssen schrieb:
>> In fact, some mathematician has proven that factoring is a polynomial
>> problem, IIRC.
>
> A P-problem? Really?! Factoring primes is a polynomal problem nowadays?
> Are you SURE about that?
Umm, no, not sure (hence the IIRC). Apparently, I am nearing an age
where
Hi!
Alexander W. Janssen schrieb:
> How do you come to that figure? A keyspace of 1024 is the double
> amount of 1023 bit, so I'm curious how you come to that figures.
While this is true for symmetric ciphers, there are far more efficient
attack methods on asymmetric ciphers (factoring - instead
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> I'm not too familiar with prime- or number-theory. Does that scale in
> the same factor in all keyspaces?
A good first-order approximation for the number of primes with a certain
number of bits is given by the formula:
X = 2**number of bits
Y = 2**(number of bits
On 11/2/07, Sven Radde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> As mentioned above, the difficulty does not scale exponentially: The
> 663-bit number took 55 CPU-years on a 2,2GHz Opteron, the 640-bit number
> 30 CPU-years. The actual computations were apparrently carried out by a
> cluster with 80 mach
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> How do you come to that figure? A keyspace of 1024 is the double
> amount of 1023 bit, so I'm curious how you come to that figures.
A keyspace of 1024 bits is double that of 1023 bits. Prime numbers
become more scarce as they go on. For instance, there are two prime
On 11/2/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
> > How do you come to that figure? A keyspace of 1024 is the double
> > amount of 1023 bit, so I'm curious how you come to that figures.
>
> A keyspace of 1024 bits is double that of 1023 bits. Prime numbers
> b
On 11/2/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RSA has never lived up to people's grand expectations. Advances in
> computers and algorithms cause the sorts of RSA keys we can attack to
> creep ever so gradually upwards. It's reasonable to think that within a
> decade an attacker with
Robert D. wrote:
> Did someone write that there is some school of thought that RSA is no
> longer very strong? Or, is the meaning that it's likely to take 900
> years instead of 100 years to crack?
RSA has never lived up to people's grand expectations. Advances in
computers and algorithms cause t
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The new OpenPGP standard has been published. It was assigned RFC
> number 4880 (someone at the IETF has a sense of humor):
That's good news. The first version of OpenPGP took a bit more than a
year to develop. At that time we had 3 implement
Did someone write that there is some school of thought that RSA is no
longer very strong? Or, is the meaning that it's likely to take 900
years instead of 100 years to crack?
Just curious. I have RSA 4096's ... could change them easily enough if
someone convinced me to do it.
The new OpenPGP standard has been published. It was assigned RFC
number 4880 (someone at the IETF has a sense of humor):
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt
In terms of GnuPG, we're almost completely compliant to it already as
GnuPG was updated as the various drafts of the standard were
discus
>Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:11:18 -0400
>From: David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Key safety vs Backup : History of a bad day
> (key-restorationproblem)
>> Paperkey extracts just those secret bytes and prints them. To
>> reconstruct, you re-enter those bytes (w
Hmm, maybe I lost my meaning in trying to avoid verbosity.
If I decided my mum, dad and brother could be trusted, I'd encrypt my
private key with a strong password.
Then I'd use to generate 3 shares, which when combined would
reveal the password to the private key.
Now I'd distribute to my
23 matches
Mail list logo
