Timeline for If a cryptanalytic breakthrough is made, what process should be followed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13 at 9:00 | comment | added | Aemyl |
regarding the flaw in method 1: I think you could indeed take 4096-bit challenges, as long as you don't reveal the factors. Just use the factorization to compute the private exponent, sign a constant string like I can break RSA and publish the signature. This method could also be generalized to other signature schemes.
|
|
| Dec 12 at 10:21 | comment | added | CrimsonDark | @poncho Thank you for pointing out my oversight. I have amended my answer but leaving the old, flawed answer within the text. | |
| Dec 12 at 4:24 | history | edited | CrimsonDark | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected answer but left flawed answer
|
| Dec 11 at 23:42 | comment | added | Paul Uszak | If you're talking of altruism, that's like patriotism in putting your country first. As discussed here; | |
| Dec 11 at 14:17 | comment | added | poncho | The problem with this is this is not zero knowledge - someone can use you as a factoring oracle. Instead, what I would recommend would be publishing anonymously that you have an algorithm, along with the factorizations of the previously unsolved challenges from the RSA factorization challenge en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge . By showing multiple factorizations of composites believed to be hard, you give evidence that your statement 'I have a factorization algorithm' is correct, without leaking anything else. Of course, this works for RSA - not in the more general case | |
| Dec 11 at 11:11 | history | edited | CrimsonDark | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| S Dec 11 at 10:38 | review | First answers | |||
| Dec 11 at 15:09 | |||||
| S Dec 11 at 10:38 | history | answered | CrimsonDark | CC BY-SA 4.0 |