4 ms·
The 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
by Igglyboo 11y ago
The 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.