Prev: Current state of affairs in cryptanalysis: an observation
Next: Hashing of short fixed length messages
From: rossum on 14 Jun 2010 09:54
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:19:57 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm not stupid enough to fully implement this thing.
You have already implemented it, your code is uploaded onto the net.
Why would there be a problem doing the same thing with brute force?

>
>> Do some timing tests with a range of values and compare them with the
>> equivalent timings for simple brute force.  Come back to us with the
>> results and we can discuss them.
>>
>> rossum
>
>Why don't you try that and see how long you live out in the open?
You are still alive aren't you.

You would do better to put as much imagination into testing your
methods as you do to finding excuses not to test them.

rossum

>
>
>___JSH

From: JSH on 14 Jun 2010 21:25
On Jun 13, 2:06 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote:
> On 13/06/2010 20:54, JSH wrote:
>
> >> Others have posted demstrations that brute force, PRNG sequences and
> >> the digits of Pi are all equally effective in battering an answer out
> >> your method for simple examples. Even you have agreed that real-world
> >> examples are unfeasable.
>
> > No, they haven't.  You're lying again.
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7093353&tstart=0

I chased the link. It shows nothing about my result, but instead is
about some other person's approach which IS easily shown to be roughly
equivalent to brute force, which relies--creative but not efficient--
on the digits of pi.

> > I've posted output from a test program.  Here's a copy of some of that
> > output that I put on sci.math:
>
> I have a copy of the source of that program. It solves a subset of the
> problem by brute force.

Yup, so?


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 15 Jun 2010 02:51
On 15/06/2010 02:25, JSH wrote:
>>> No, they haven't. You're lying again.
>>
>> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7093353&tstart=0
>
> I chased the link. It shows nothing about my result, but instead is
> about some other person's approach which IS easily shown to be roughly
> equivalent to brute force, which relies--creative but not efficient--
> on the digits of pi.

So I wasn't lying.

Your own Java program is brute force, and its the only actual solution
you've offered.

>>> I've posted output from a test program. Here's a copy of some of that
>>> output that I put on sci.math:
>>
>> I have a copy of the source of that program. It solves a subset of the
>> problem by brute force.
>
> Yup, so?

That's my point. Your solution may "solve" the relationship in trivial
cases, but it is useless for real-world (such as cryptographic) cases.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 15 Jun 2010 10:18
On Jun 14, 11:51 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote:
> On 15/06/2010 02:25, JSH wrote:
>
> >>> No, they haven't.  You're lying again.
>
> >>http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7093353&tstart=0
>
> > I chased the link.  It shows nothing about my result, but instead is
> > about some other person's approach which IS easily shown to be roughly
> > equivalent to brute force, which relies--creative but not efficient--
> > on the digits of pi.
>
> So I wasn't lying.
>
> Your own Java program is brute force, and its the only actual solution
> you've offered.

My test program uses a set of primes under 100 to factor T. That
portion is then brute force.

But so what?

> >>> I've posted output from a test program.  Here's a copy of some of that
> >>> output that I put on sci.math:
>
> >> I have a copy of the source of that program. It solves a subset of the
> >> problem by brute force.
>
> > Yup, so?
>
> That's my point. Your solution may "solve" the relationship in trivial
> cases, but it is useless for real-world (such as cryptographic) cases.

Does not follow.

You're making a big deal about my use of "brute force" to factor T,
when any idiot would know that if someone made a real world
implementation they could replace that with any factoring method of
their choice.

It's not the main method. It's a driver of one piece of that method.

The idea is a way to find k, when k^m = q mod N, by factoring, which
means, guess what?

You need to factor something.

How you do that factoring is your concern.


James Harris
From: Tom on 15 Jun 2010 10:58
On Jun 15, 10:18 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea is a way to find k, when k^m = q mod N, by factoring, which
> means, guess what?
>
> You need to factor something.

Which basically sums up all of your factoring "algorithms."

Step 1. Factor T
Step 2. Prove some relationship exists between the factors
Step 3. Boast about factoring T.

Where you cleverly omit any analysis of step 1, or how it's even
performed.

Tom
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Current state of affairs in cryptanalysis: an observation
Next: Hashing of short fixed length messages