Prev: Current state of affairs in cryptanalysis: an observation
Next: Hashing of short fixed length messages
From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 11:37
People wonder how you can argue on Usenet, or in other places,
endlessly over subjects like math, and you can look over my recent
Usenet postings to see how, as if other people refuse to accept
something because they find it distasteful or repugnant, then they can
just refuse to accept it.

There is no other known general method other than brute force for
finding k, when k^m = q mod N, besides what I found.

Now a rational person learning that a new way has been discovered
would find that exciting--if it came from established sources.

But the fact coming from me gets a lot of denial in response as that
changes the status quo. And people are social animals.

So yeah, I've seen this behavior for years. Human beings are not
rational creatures they are social creatures.

Of course cryptology people will proclaim they'd accept a major new
find from any source, reality is, ask yourself: is there any other
known general method OF ANY TYPE besides brute force for finding k,
when k^m = q mod N besides what I found?

If the answer is, no. Then you're risking national security by
ignoring this result.

And no matter what your social gut tells you now, if any of you have
security clearances in ANY COUNTRY around the globe, at a minimum
those will be stripped from you later, and you will become persona non
grata within the security community.

As hindsight is 20-20 and cruel. No government will trust you later
no matter what explanation you try to give.


James Harris
From: amzoti on 13 Jun 2010 13:24
On Jun 13, 8:37 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Then you're risking national security by ignoring this result.
> James Harris

I will go out on a huge limb and take my chances as the risk is zero
that anything you do has any value.

I am will to bet US$100.00 that nothing impacting crypto comes from
ANY of your blatherings!

You have nothing ... absolutely nothing.

Not now, not ever - that is your legacy and fame.

You are the class clown - have been - are - and will be for all time.

Delusional narcissist!

From: rossum on 13 Jun 2010 13:51
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>There is no other known general method other than brute force for
>finding k, when k^m = q mod N, besides what I found.
>
>Now a rational person learning that a new way has been discovered
>would find that exciting--if it came from established sources.
Not in cryptography.

I have a method that will break any AES encryption:

foreach possible key pk
plaintext <- decrypt cyphertext using pk
if (plaintext is legible) then
print plaintext
exit
end if
end foreach

That method is "right", it works and it will eventually find the
plaintext. The problem is that it is far too slow.

You have failed to produce any evidence that your new modular root
technique is any faster than brute force. If your method is no faster
than brute force then it is cryptographically useless.

Do some timing tests with a range of values and compare them with the
equivalent timings for simple brute force. Come back to us with the
results and we can discuss them.

rossum

From: JSH on 13 Jun 2010 14:19
On Jun 13, 10:51 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no other known general method other than brute force for
> >finding k, when k^m = q mod N, besides what I found.
>
> >Now a rational person learning that a new way has been discovered
> >would find that exciting--if it came from established sources.
>
> Not in cryptography.
>
> I have a method that will break any AES encryption:
>
>   foreach possible key pk
>     plaintext <- decrypt cyphertext using pk
>     if (plaintext is legible) then
>       print plaintext
>       exit
>     end if
>   end foreach
>
> That method is "right", it works and it will eventually find the
> plaintext. The problem is that it is far too slow.
>
> You have failed to produce any evidence that your new modular root
> technique is any faster than brute force.  If your method is no faster
> than brute force then it is cryptographically useless.

I'm not stupid enough to fully implement this thing.

> Do some timing tests with a range of values and compare them with the
> equivalent timings for simple brute force.  Come back to us with the
> results and we can discuss them.
>
> rossum

Why don't you try that and see how long you live out in the open?


___JSH

From: Mark Murray on 13 Jun 2010 14:45
On 13/06/2010 19:19, JSH wrote:
> I'm not stupid enough to fully implement this thing.

No. You don't have the necessary skill to do so.

>> Do some timing tests with a range of values and compare them with the
>> equivalent timings for simple brute force. Come back to us with the
>> results and we can discuss them.
>>
>> rossum
>
> Why don't you try that and see how long you live out in the open?

How dead the the folks who made the DES cracker end up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker

Cryptologists find attacks on ciphers all the time. They are perfectly
safe.

You really ought to do some research sometime.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Current state of affairs in cryptanalysis: an observation
Next: Hashing of short fixed length messages