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: Bruce Stephens on 13 Jun 2010 15:17 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: [...] > Oh well, debate is unnecessary. If I'm right, then within 24 hours > I'd guess that the evidence will reveal itself. Just like it did with RSA last year (and several years before)? > 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. Why just the British and American ones? > It will be up to the rest of the world to protect the world during > this delicate period. Surely people would just advance the use of ECC?
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jun 2010 15:27 On 13/06/2010 20:07, JSH wrote: > 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. Sufficient mathematical support has been provided. If you have ignored them before, I see no use in wasting my time providing them again for you to ignore them again. > 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. "May allow one..."? Stop guessing. Either DO IT or shut up. > So, I have been upfront. I have kept to facts, and noted reality. Wrong on three counts. > 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. Your method makes no claims at all as to the efficiency of your algorithm. You have yet to provide a non-trivial domonstation. And no; I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you. > 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. Cryptanalysis is not a crime. > 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. Huh? > 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. What the HECK are you smoking? M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 15:58 On Jun 13, 12:27 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/06/2010 20:07, JSH wrote: > > > 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. > > Sufficient mathematical support has been provided. If you have ignored > them before, I see no use in wasting my time providing them again for > you to ignore them again. > > > 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. > > "May allow one..."? Stop guessing. Either DO IT or shut up. That could breach security for US Government and US military, as well as for US allies who rely on those security techniques around the world. So I ask you, do you wish me to demonstrate? The derivation is fairly trivial, but afterwards the world you know could come to an end. LOTS of people could die all over the world. So I ask you AGAIN, do you wish me to demonstrate as you request? James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 13 Jun 2010 16:43 On 13/06/2010 20:58, JSH wrote: >> "May allow one..."? Stop guessing. Either DO IT or shut up. > > That could breach security for US Government and US military, as well > as for US allies who rely on those security techniques around the > world. It does not breach US law; in fact it has been shown to be constitutionally protected free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann > So I ask you, do you wish me to demonstrate? As there is no risk, yes. > The derivation is fairly trivial, but afterwards the world you know > could come to an end. Not the derivation. I've seen the derivation /ad nauseam/. RESULTS. > LOTS of people could die all over the world. Negligible risk. > So I ask you AGAIN, do you wish me to demonstrate as you request? Yes. DEMONSTRATE. Not yet-another-derivation, but a real-world example of it WORKING with cryptographic-grade numbers. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 17:00
On Jun 13, 1:43 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 13/06/2010 20:58, JSH wrote: > > >> "May allow one..."? Stop guessing. Either DO IT or shut up. > > > That could breach security for US Government and US military, as well > > as for US allies who rely on those security techniques around the > > world. > > It does not breach US law; in fact it has been shown to be > constitutionally protected free speech. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann > > > So I ask you, do you wish me to demonstrate? > > As there is no risk, yes. > > > The derivation is fairly trivial, but afterwards the world you know > > could come to an end. > > Not the derivation. I've seen the derivation /ad nauseam/. > RESULTS. > > > LOTS of people could die all over the world. > > Negligible risk. > > > So I ask you AGAIN, do you wish me to demonstrate as you request? > > Yes. DEMONSTRATE. Not yet-another-derivation, but a real-world > example of it WORKING with cryptographic-grade numbers. Military members who later learn of the real risk may wish to thank you in person later. I will, of course, not comply. I've sent an update to the Annals of Mathematics. ___JSH |