From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:39:40 +0800
To: Bruce Marshall <brucem@wichita.fn.net>
Subject: Re: RSA-130 Falls to NFS - Lenstra Posting to sci.crypt.research
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960416090319.2962C-100000@wichita.fn.net>
Message-ID: <199604170014.RAA07011@netcom3.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>
>On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
>> I have been wondering about malicious hackers getting into these
>> pools. would it be possible for them to contribute false data
>> that screws up the end results? or are such anomalies easily
>> discarded or disregarded by the final processes?
>
>> future implementors of these programs might amuse themselves with
>> trying to create such safeguards or anticipate such "attacks" which
>> are pretty significant the more the processes become distributed.
>
>    I guess I would have to ask you why you think hackers would be 
>interested in these projects in the first place?  Your typical hacker 
>would care very little about such a project and in fact may be interested 
>in seeing it succeed.  

the malicious type of hacker has the psychology of taking
great glee in tearing anything meaningful down. they don't
necessarily need a plausible reason. the purpose of destruction
alone can be a powerful motivating force. those who destroy
carefully constructed things for fun obtain a sense of power from it.

>    However, I do feel that you may have a valid point when switching 
>"hackers" to "opponents of the research."  Anyone with an interest in 
>preventing or slowing down the progress in such a project would be more 
>dangerous in my mind than your average hacker.  

the point is, when you are sharing your project among a lot of 
elements "out there" on a network, you have to worry more and 
more about "safe computing". when you are working on a purely
voluntary basis, what is your guarantee that everyone who volunteers
is actually on your side? again, a bigger problem the more a 
task is decentralized. one interesting argument in favor of centralized 
computing (I'm not saying it is a definitive argument, quite far
from that of course-- just pointing out that Distribution is
not necessarily the Panacea to All Problems).