4 ms·
Attaching specific numbers to an expression like L(1/4) is meaningless, because L(1/4) is an asymptotic expression. Asymptotic expressions contain implied const
by djao 13y ago
Attaching specific numbers to an expression like L(1/4) is meaningless, because L(1/4) is an asymptotic expression. Asymptotic expressions contain implied constants, whose values are not explicit. There's also no particular reason to expect the L(1/4) attack to apply to RSA. For one, I explained in another reply that we currently do not know any direct relationship between RSA and discrete log. In addition, Joux's latest result is not even L(1/4), it's L(epsilon) for any fixed epsilon > 0 (and in this context, the implied constant cannot be ignored, otherwise you get nonsense values).
Google does use ECC, on platforms that support it. See for example http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/11/protecting-data-for-long-term-with.html http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/11/protecting-... which has a screenshot.
- YZF 13y agoYou're right and I understand that. I was assuming some hypothetical attack that is equivalent to GNFS. That assumption has no theoretical basis, it's just used as a mechanism to question the ideas and get some intuition. I'm using the same line of argument used in the original presentation where they show a progression and make assumptions about what that means about RSA keys. I think that line of reasoning is odd but even under that line of reasoning the results don't make sense to me.