4 ms·
I liked the way the factorization was announced[0]. Fun Number Theory Facts Gentlemen, A mathematical morsel for your entertainment a
by ryan-c 11y ago
I liked the way the factorization was announced[0].
Fun Number Theory Facts
Gentlemen,
A mathematical morsel for your entertainment and edification.
The number
6,857,599,914,349,403,977,654,744,967,
172,758,179,904,114,264,612,947,326,
127,169,976,133,296,980,951,450,542,
789,808,884,504,301,075,550,786,464,
802,304,019,795,402,754,670,660,318,
614,966,266,413,770,127
is the product of
5,174,413,344,875,007,990,519,123,187,
618,500,139,954,995,264,909,695,897,
020,209,972,309,881,454,541
and
1,325,290,319,363,741,258,636,842,042,
448,323,483,211,759,628,292,406,959,
481,461,131,759,210,884,908,747.
0. https://web.archive.org/web/20090805011013/http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopic=8888 https://web.archive.org/web/20090805011013/http://www.united...
- sneak 11y agoI mean, really - they used a non-trivial but practically workable math problem to block features from calculator enthusiasts. What did they expect to happen?!
- TeMPOraL 11y agoMaybe at the time the problem was intractable?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- stephengillie 11y agoIt's always seemed somewhat tenuous to tie our operational security to our rate of technological advancement. Though maybe it's more of a statement about our ability to generally understand our rapid advancements.
- vidarh 11y agoIt is the recognition that almost all secrets are only valuable for an amount of time, and that you generate keys on the basis that within that time, it will be much more expensive to attack the keys than to attack something else.
- Igglyboo 11y agoThe calculators were released in 1999 and 512-bit RSA was strong enough for that time period. "Moody used two free implementations of the general number field sieve, msieve and ggnfs; the computation took 73 days on a 1.9 GHz dual-core processor. This demonstrates the progress of hardware development: the factorization of the similar 512-bit RSA-155 in 1999 using the same algorithm required a large dedicated research group, 8000 MIPS-years of computing time, and a Cray C916 supercomputer."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_...
- stygiansonic 11y agoI might be mistaken, but I believe sneak was referring to the general irony of using RSA, whose underlying strength relies on the math problem of large number prime factorization, as a deterrent to keep out calculator enthusiasts, who presumably would find such a problem interesting. (Rather than the suitability of the key length of 512-bit RSA, which as you pointed out, was good enough back then) However, I guess the same could be said for RSA being used in any product used by technically-oriented folks.
- stygiansonic 11y agoThe progression of the comments in that thread, in hindsight, is quite amusing. It goes something like this: 0. What is this??? 1. Sorry, you're wrong. 2. This is the most amazing thing since sliced bread!
- jmgao 11y agoComment 1 is more along the lines of "Is it the key for the TI Nspire? Nope, wrong length"