General factoring result for k^m = q mod N
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: The Winds of Change - The Three Snake Oils of Cryptography.
Next: Current state of affairs in cryptanalysis: an observation
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 14:41 On Jun 13, 11:38 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/06/2010 19:18, JSH wrote: > > >> ... but you completely failed to notice that "your" result is a trivial > >> consequence of the above. > > > Um, but no, it's not. Rather than argue with you, assuming your brain > > may have snapped, try to derive it from the above. > > Do your own checking. You are the one making the wild claims. Until > an hour or three ago, you weren't even AWARE of these results; now go > and do your homework properly this time. I'm not wasting my time on it. > > >> Try reading some books on the subject you claim to be such an expert > >> on. These are so fundamental to the "basic" result you claim, that > >> its embarassing. > > > I don't claim to be an expert. I'm not a mathematician. > > Terminology. You claim to be a mathematical discoverer, and you claim > that "your" mathematics is the most advanced in the world. The way > you use transparent weasel-words like "may" and "could" fools only you. > > > However, there is no other known method besides brute force to in > > general find k, when k^m = q mod N, where m is a natural number. > > None. Absolute. No other than mine in all of human history. > > No. INCLUDING yours. Your method is a brute force search. Only > you can't see that. At least that's a testable assertion. It also refutes your previous post!!! As a "brute force search" has nothing to do with the Chinese Remainder Theorem and modular exponentiation. So you simply shifted when challenged to derive the result using what you presented. If you try cognitive dissonance as a defense later, again, my position is that you are WILLFULLY denying a truth you do not like. James Harris
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 14:45 On Jun 13, 11:25 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce +use...(a)cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > > However, there is no other known method besides brute force to in > > general find k, when k^m = q mod N, where m is a natural number. > > None. Absolute. No other than mine in all of human history. > > > That is black and white. Absolute. No if's and's or butt's in there. > > > Claiming otherwise is just a matter of GIVING ONE. > > > And you helped make things worse as I realized that those equations > > may allow you to handle logarithmic whatever, so that handles what the > > NSA claims it uses. > > > That breaks all main US encryption systems overnight. So it's a > > national security meltdown. > > Why? Notice that the discrete logarithm problem (as used in DH, for > example) is to find m given k, q, N in k^m = q mod N. Finding k is of > no importance since it's a public parameter. Correct. I've presented it that way but the actual result doesn't presume anything. My position had been to consider finding k, when q, m and N were known. Turns out the equations allow a fairly straightforward way to find m, when k, q and N are known. It may actually be easier than finding k, and, um, is deterministic. So it's a bigger breach. Those systems may be worse than systems based on integer factorization and far more simple to break. Isn't math ironic? Oh well, debate is unnecessary. If I'm right, then within 24 hours I'd guess that the evidence will reveal itself. My analysis is that British and American cryptology people may ignore this result until a massive breach forces their hand, so other nations are warned to be careful in contacts with those nations while they go through their little insane period. It will be up to the rest of the world to protect the world during this delicate period. James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jun 2010 14:55 On 13/06/2010 19:41, JSH wrote: >> No. INCLUDING yours. Your method is a brute force search. Only >> you can't see that. > > At least that's a testable assertion. ... whaich you have failed to test. > It also refutes your previous post!!! As a "brute force search" has > nothing to do with the Chinese Remainder Theorem and modular > exponentiation. The CRT and ME are tools. Just tools. Your result is a consequence about which you have made outrageous claims. You have the tools (now). Try using them. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jun 2010 14:58 On 13/06/2010 19:45, JSH wrote: > It will be up to the rest of the world to protect the world during > this delicate period. Like all your other similar predictions? M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 15:07
On Jun 13, 11:55 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/06/2010 19:41, JSH wrote: > > >> No. INCLUDING yours. Your method is a brute force search. Only > >> you can't see that. > > > At least that's a testable assertion. > > .. whaich you have failed to test. > > > It also refutes your previous post!!! As a "brute force search" has > > nothing to do with the Chinese Remainder Theorem and modular > > exponentiation. > > The CRT and ME are tools. Just tools. Your result is a consequence > about which you have made outrageous claims. You have the tools (now). > > Try using them. Dude, you lied. You can't derive my result using the "CRT" and the "ME", so your post claiming their relevance is false. You further moved when challenged to simply claiming the method is brute force, but gave not mathematical support. Instead you say I make outrageous claims when I gave a mathematical relation that DOES show a method for finding k, when k^m = q mod N, by integer factorization. Further in response to you, I noticed that it MAY allow one to find m, when you know k, q and N. So, I have been upfront. I have kept to facts, and noted reality. You have repeatedly given false information, or you can NOW, in reply, either give a method that allows one to find k, when k^m = q mod N that is not brute force, or mathematically prove that what I've given-- which readers can see at the start of this thread--is brute force as you claim. Ok, so for others: why would someone make false claims in an area of national security where later, say, they might end up with life in prison? Because in response to extreme pressure to believe something a person does not wish to belief that person can simply CHOOSE not to believe, and convince themselves that they can handle any future fall- out later. It's a problem of too much confidence in one's ability which can be a middle-class problem from people who have never faced extreme failure in their lives. They simply can't comprehend what it feels like. Weird case in Africa recently: A mother and her 2 year old daughter were killed by a mother elephant with her calf. One presumes that the mother--who I think was from the US--could not comprehend the danger as IN HER EXPERIENCE, life did not present such dangers to her. And she died. With her 2 year old daughter. Killed by that mother elephant who now is currently still taking care of her calf. She just defended herself. Maybe the American woman thought the mother elephant and her calf were kindred spirits with her and her 2 year old daughter or something, and really cute. Reality does not care if you appreciate the danger. It can kill you anyway. James Harris |