News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “This destroys the RSA cryptosystem”.

Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by randtrain34 on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @05:52PM (#26322253)
They only tested with numbers size of ~2^800, which is around 240 digits, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there exists usages of RSA with over 600 digits, so it'll still take a massively long amount of time to factor those numbers...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by paconbork on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @06:11PM (#26322476)
It's worth noting that numbers of this size are already being factored with existing techniques. RSA-250, a 250 digit (829 binary digit) product of two primes was factored pretty recently: https://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/cado-nfs-discuss/202...

Moreover, a 768 bit product was factored over 11 years ago, though it took two years to compute! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by munchbunny on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @05:53PM (#26322272)
Typical key lengths for RSA these days are 2048 and 4096 bits.

I don't know what that means for this paper, just happened to have those two key lengths off the top of my head.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by ChuckMcM on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @05:58PM (#26322335)
2048 bits ~ 617 decimal digits, 4096 bits ~ 1234 digits.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by pkulak on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @05:58PM (#26322327)
So, 616 and 1233 digits, respectively.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by ChuckMcM on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @06:24PM (#26322616)
Jinx! :-)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by pkulak on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @06:29PM (#26322665)
lol. Oops. At least glad I didn't screw up the math.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“This destroys the RSA cryptosystem” by r-w on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @08:02PM (#26323413)
You do have to remember to round up, since if log_b(n) = x.y then n still requires at least (x+1) digits to describe in base-b.
[ Parent | on HN ]