3 ms·

An interesting point at [0]: > if Schnorr could “destroy RSA”, he would have destroyed one of the RSA Challenge problems to prove it. He did not. [0] https://

An interesting point at [0]: > if Schnorr could “destroy RSA”, he would have destroyed one of the RSA Challenge problems to prove it. He did not. [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/03/no-rsa-is-not-broken.html/#comment-370288 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/03/no-rsa-is-not...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
That isn't as reassuring as it seems. It may be that Schnorr could "destroy RSA", but that the computing requirements are still beyond what a researcher could have access to, but are within the abilities of a large corporation or nation-state. An example is SHA-1. We have known it was broken for some time, but it took Google's massive compute power to actually produce a real world collision.
amelius 6y ago
What kind of reasoning is this? Not all mathematicians are interested in or capable of computer programming.
- darig 6y ago
  When the "computer programming" in question is pure mathematics, the reasoning is called "logic".
- chrismeller 6y ago
  You are correct, but I think it’s still a valid point. The way to demonstrate to the world that it is broken would have been to break it, and if you even skim over his bonafides it seems like something he is 1) an expert in and 2) would have the resources to demonstrate, even if not programmed by himself (grad students, perhaps?). He’s also older and retired and could simply have the attitude of “F it, I’ll leave this here, mic drop”, so who the hell really knows.
  - not2b 6y ago
    He could find any number of grad students who would be happy to code up his algorithm for him, so they can be co-authors on the paper that "destroyed RSA".
    - lisper 6y ago
      Or any number of hackers who would be happy to do it so they could be the first to break into people's bank accounts. If RSA were broken as a result of a public announcement with no warning, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind because chaos would ensue in very short order.
    - Someone 6y ago
      I’m not claiming anything about the correctness of this proof, but if it isn’t correct, writing a program that implements the algorithm would be a waste of time. So, if the proof is hard to follow and describes a complex algorithm, grad students who don’t fully grok the supposed proof might not be that happy to work on that program. They might end up looking for a nonexistent bug in their program for months. I also think it’s illustrative to mention the Grothendieck prime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number)) here, as an example of how little concern some mathematicians have for applications of their results. That _could_ explain why Schnorr didn’t bother to even ask his students to write that program.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

That isn't as reassuring as it seems. It may be that Schnorr could "destroy RSA", but that the computing requirements are still beyond what a researcher could have access to, but are within the abilities of a large corporation or nation-state. An example is SHA-1. We have known it was broken for some time, but it took Google's massive compute power to actually produce a real world collision.

amelius 6y ago

What kind of reasoning is this? Not all mathematicians are interested in or capable of computer programming.

darig 6y ago
When the "computer programming" in question is pure mathematics, the reasoning is called "logic".
chrismeller 6y ago
You are correct, but I think it’s still a valid point. The way to demonstrate to the world that it is broken would have been to break it, and if you even skim over his bonafides it seems like something he is 1) an expert in and 2) would have the resources to demonstrate, even if not programmed by himself (grad students, perhaps?). He’s also older and retired and could simply have the attitude of “F it, I’ll leave this here, mic drop”, so who the hell really knows.
- not2b 6y ago
  He could find any number of grad students who would be happy to code up his algorithm for him, so they can be co-authors on the paper that "destroyed RSA".
  - lisper 6y ago
    Or any number of hackers who would be happy to do it so they could be the first to break into people's bank accounts. If RSA were broken as a result of a public announcement with no warning, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind because chaos would ensue in very short order.
  - Someone 6y ago
    I’m not claiming anything about the correctness of this proof, but if it isn’t correct, writing a program that implements the algorithm would be a waste of time. So, if the proof is hard to follow and describes a complex algorithm, grad students who don’t fully grok the supposed proof might not be that happy to work on that program. They might end up looking for a nonexistent bug in their program for months. I also think it’s illustrative to mention the Grothendieck prime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number)) here, as an example of how little concern some mathematicians have for applications of their results. That _could_ explain why Schnorr didn’t bother to even ask his students to write that program.