1994-06-17 - Re: Prime magnitude and keys…a ?

Header Data

From: Linn Stanton <lstanton@sten.lehman.com>
To: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Message Hash: 31fbc448873f3d801b8bb0de96c894be5e1cb068f939b887f95f368899689356
Message ID: <9406171924.AA20166@sten.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199406171911.OAA11449@zoom.bga.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-17 19:23:56 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:23:56 PDT

Raw message

From: Linn Stanton <lstanton@sten.lehman.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:23:56 PDT
To: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Subject: Re: Prime magnitude and keys...a ?
In-Reply-To: <199406171911.OAA11449@zoom.bga.com>
Message-ID: <9406171924.AA20166@sten.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

In message <199406171911.OAA11449@zoom.bga.com>you write:
  > You only found a single set of factors for your public key (ie 3,8 also work)
  > and if I had asked "is the number 6?" as my first question then I would have 
  > had it in 1 single guess which does *NOT* qualify as factoring your key.

Of course it qualifies. No matter how a key gets broken, its
broken. The point is that if a function exists which will tell you if
a given number is larger than the RSA private key, that function can
be used as a factoring algorithm.

  > the fact it is a subset of what I am talking about means that there are some
  > issues (and possibly an algorithm or two) that are outside of the purvue of
  > a discussion limited to simply factoring. The horizon has been expanded.

No, what it means is that you would have to break most of number
theory, and common sense, before having to worry about such a
function. The risk of exploding in the vacuum caused by all of the
molecules in the air of this room suddenly moving to the far corner is
far higher than the chance of such a function existing.