[117116] in Cypherpunks
Re: First factorization of a "hard" 512-bit integer
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Cordian)
Thu Aug 26 18:26:37 1999
From: Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
Message-Id: <199908262209.RAA14429@wire.insync.net>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:09:06 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <19990826200720.A6074@tightrope.demon.co.uk> from "Steve Mynott" at Aug 26, 99 08:07:20 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
Tiny Quibble:
> RSA-155 =
> 1094173864157052742180970732204035761200373294544920599091384213147634\
> 9984288934784717997257891267332497625752899781833797076537244027146743\
> 531593354333897
I thought the RSA Challenge list went from RSA-100 to RSA-500 in
increments of 10 decimal digits.
So I grabbed a copy of it just now from the autoresponder, and apparently
they augmented it in 1997 with RSA-155, RSA-232, RSA-309, and RSA-617,
designed to match commonly used bitlengths of 512, 768, 1024, and 2048.
This kind of ruins the spacing of the original list. Does it really serve
any purpose to have both RSA-200 and RSA-232? The original list ramped up
nicely in terms of difficulty, and aside from aiding the writing of press
releases about commonly used key lengths, there was no need to add
anything to it.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
