6 ms·
When I was at EFF, I helped run the Cooperative Computing Awards project (https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/ https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/), which was funded d
by schoen 6y ago
When I was at EFF, I helped run the Cooperative Computing Awards project (https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/ https://www.eff.org/awards/coop/), which was funded decades ago by an individual donor and provides cash rewards for finding prime numbers of certain sizes.
Because of EFF's advocacy for cryptography, people always thought that there was a more direct connection between the Mersenne prime search and cryptographic techniques, but the connection is at best distant and tenuous. The record primes that GIMPS finds and that can receive EFF's awards are
* much (much much) bigger than the primes that we use for cryptography
* too big to do almost any kind of practical computation with
* not secret, so couldn't be used as part of a secret key
The distribution or explicit values of Mersenne primes (and, correspondingly, perfect numbers) also don't really help in our assessment of the difficulty of the RSA problem or the security of public-key cryptography, because they aren't closely related to any of the fastest factorization algorithms that apply to arbitrary numbers.
(Mersenne primes are much easier to deterministically test for primality than numbers in general, which is why the record primes that GIMPS finds are Mersenne primes. The runtime complexity of primality-testing algorithms for special-form numbers is sometimes much less than algorithms for an arbitrary number, and this is a great example.)
I think the main contribution of projects like GIMPS to cryptography and computer security lies in getting people more interested in number theory and mathematics in general. Hopefully that will lead to faster improvements in humanity's knowledge of mathematics in ways that lead to more secure public-key algorithms or to better public assessments of the algorithms that we have now. (Although a lot of the important current research on public-key cryptography is not about factorization but rather about elliptic-key systems and post-quantum systems.)
I always felt I had a hard time explaining to people that the awards existed in order to publicize the idea of cooperative distributed computing projects, which were quite novel when EFF's awards were first created, and which were a demonstration of the power of the Internet to help people who've never even met each other work together. (The awards, contrary to the hopes and dreams of math enthusiasts and cranks around the world, didn't anticipate progress through new research or ideas so much through more volunteer computer time.)
Probably today we have ample other demonstrations of that power, and that concept is no longer in much doubt, and the GIMPS project probably no longer even registers for most people as a particularly impressive example. But it is impressive in continuing to set multiple world records on one of the simplest, purest, most basic mathematical problems.
- Blahah 6y ago> not secret Clearly, no smaller primes are secret either, nor are they so numerous that iterating over them is computationally difficult. And mathematically, anyone can discover primes. Why does it matter whether primes are secret?
- centimeter 6y agoSome cryptosystems like RSA are based on secret primes. Density of primes is about 1/log(n), so there are plenty of primes to choose from. Some cryptosystems like ECDSA are based on secret elements selected from a field, and the primes there are public.
- Blahah 6y agoSorry, just to be clear, they are obscure, not secret. Anyone can compute primes. No prime is secret.
- ifdefdebug 6y agoLike in: anyone can combine characters. No password is secret?
- grifball 6y agoI guess I don't fully understand this, but RSA works so there MUST be "secret" primes (as in, then can be randomly generated like a symmetric key can).
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoThey are secret. "Secret key" is a technical term in cryptography, and there are thousands of research papers published with this term [0], including a paper by Eli Biham and Adi Shamir on "Differential fault analysis of secret key cryptosystems". Using you believe that you are more knowledgeable in crypto than Adi Shamir (The "S" in "RSA") and insist on using an alternative definition of "secret" not accepted by cryptographers and infosec researchers, there should be no problem using the word "secret". Otherwise, reductio ad absurdum, Following the same line of logic, all cryptography is "security through obscurity" because there exists a secret key, which is not incorrect. The practice of hiding the design of a system is obscurity, the practice of hiding a specific key to a ciphertext is security, not obscurity, as long as the method of generating and using it is publicly available. If there's nothing to reverse engineer, there can be no obscurity. The method of finding a symmetric key or finding a RSA key is well-known, not obscured, it's simply the size of the problem is not computationally tractable in practice by today's computers. [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=secret+key https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=secret+key