Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Did Schnorr just break RSA? There are many factors to consider   (sweis.medium.com) divider line
    More: Giggity, Cryptography, recent paper, Claus P. Schnorr, correctness of the paper, factor 400-bit moduli, significant improvements, Fast Factoring Integers, Schnorr's paper claims  
•       •       •

1164 clicks; posted to STEM » on 04 Mar 2021 at 12:41 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-03-04 2:07:44 AM  
4 votes:

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: He looks fine to me.

[Fark user image image 600x360]


That's what they used to say about ODB
 
2021-03-04 1:04:38 AM  
3 votes:
He looks fine to me.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-03 7:39:02 PM  
2 votes:
My money is still in my accounts, so it hasn't been cracked yet.
 
2021-03-04 8:17:52 AM  
1 vote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA can already do this.

If they can, it's probably since 2013, the time of the Snowden revelations, because if it was commonly done back then it probably would have been buried somewhere in the documents that Snowden released.  To my knowledge, it wasn't, and if it was something they could commonly do they wouldn't go to all the trouble to use both software and hardware side-channel attacks.

And I would caution against saying things like "Well, it would take X thousand years to break", because we have historical examples of that very logic falling flat on its face numerous times.  Perhaps the most well-known example being the Enigma machine during WWII.  The Germans knew the Enigma wasn't unbreakable.  They knew it had weaknesses.  They just didn't think about an automated, massively parallel attack against it.*

Just because we don't have an example of how to break this kind of encryption available in the open literature doesn't mean that one doesn't exist and isn't being exploited as we speak.

*Although by the last few months of the war they started acting like they knew it was being read by the Allies.
 
2021-03-04 3:52:16 AM  
1 vote:

Quantumbunny: Considering the paper is 2 years old and no demonstration of the factorization has occurred, let's just say I find it unlikely.

I do think there are optimizations to be made in factorization problems, but these are pretty well understood, well enough we have lots of known problems and benchmarks. If you had a working algorithm for faster factoring, it should be trivial to code and prove against some of these known problems.


There are two possible reasons for this as I see it:

a. It's wrong or a hoax (more probable)
b. Analogue of how the Laundry operates whenever someone gets too close to "Art of Computer Programming vol III" territory is in effect to suppress it.

Bear in mind, he's claiming a speed-up of somewhat over ten orders of magnitude (from 2700 core-years to a handful of core-seconds) in factoring efficiency.
 
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.