Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More on Bernstein's Number Field Sieve

Posted by michael on from the winnow-him-out-'twixt-star-and-star dept.

Russ Nelson writes "Dan Bernstein has a response to Bernstein's NFS analyzed by Lenstra and Shamir, entitled Circuits for integer factorization. He notes that the issue of the cost of factorization is still open, and that it may in fact be inexpensive to factor 1024-bit keys. We don't know, and that's what his research is intended to explore."

7 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Headhunters visiting the site? by Blue+1ce · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK, you're right. Or as DJB puts it: "This is revisionist history, not a technical dispute."

    But you're wrong concerning the AOL CDs. One of NSA's missions is "protection of U.S. information systems". So no AOL allowed...

  2. Re:Headhunters visiting the site? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny
    Quantum Computers, Advances in Number Theory; looks like this decade will become interesting

    I'll say! Arthur Andersen has advanced number theory further than anyone had imagined it could go!

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. Cost Effective? by telstar · · Score: 1, Funny
    We already learned from "Sneakers" what one of these things costs:
    • one cleaned up record
    • a whinnebago (burgandy interior)
    • a date with an armed woman named Mary
    • a trip to Europe (plus Tahiti)
    • peace on earth, good will towards man.
    Oh ... He means performance costs. Nevermind.
  4. Re:Security ... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny
    Security through obscurity is when you run your relaying smtp server on port 27 instead of port 25.

    That's why I choose real security. My relaying smtp server runs on a prime number port, protected by factoring. In fact, I can go ahead and tell you that the port is one of the prime factors of 899 without reducing my security at all.

    (The example of 27 is a particularly lame choice, since it's 3x3x3. That's not even nearly prime.)

  5. Time to update that crypto by hazyshadeofwinter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, I once thought it was secure, but it looks like now I might have to replace my rot13 encryption with rot26, or even rot52...

    --
    Click here if you just like to click on shit.
  6. Re:So what? by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2, Funny

    What we need is an encryption system that isn't based on math.

  7. Cost model by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

    Computation time multiplied by the cost of the computer?

    His department comptroller must love him. "No, you can't have a new plastic spoon, because it costs 11 cents and you will be using it for 0.8 years and that's...2.8 million dollar-seconds...we'll buy you a new $40 silver spoon every day and let you use it to stir your coffee for three seconds per...that's only 35K dollar-seconds..." It's pathological.

    Okay, if you fully depreciate the computer to the moment you start the computation, or better yet, market-price it, then watch the price as the computation continues along (could drop 10-20% in a few weeks for a given top-end PC type machine), then you're calculating the average replacement cost of the machine over the life of the computation.

    It still seems a little verschimmelt. The quasi-rent on such a machine is really the depreciation over the term of the computation.

    Need to think more on what cost means to someone who's trying to steal all your base. They probably stole the computer, anyway.

    --Blair