Timeline for How can I generate large prime numbers for RSA?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2018 at 18:02 | comment | added | j.p. | @forest: Nice observation! But if you can trust the running times given in this answer, I doubt that many will opt for ECPP unless a proof for primeness is strictly required. | |
| Dec 8, 2018 at 5:30 | comment | added | forest | @j.p. A better algorithm than AKS would probably be ECPP, since it can generate a primality certificate that can be used to rapidly verify that the integer is prime, negating the risk of hardware errors. | |
| Jul 30, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | j.p. | @Mok-KongShen: "Testing it for primality first via trial division by an appropriate set of small primes and then via the Miller-Rabin test for diverse values of t" is not really a fast way to find primes. Using a sieve and one Fermat test (to the base 2) for what remains in the sieve before applying the Miller-Rabin tests should be at least double as fast. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 10:45 | comment | added | Mok-Kong Shen | @j.p.: I compared in Python Maurer's algorithm with that of Miller-Rabin and found that they are quite comparable for practical purposes. See s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7234475/1/ | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 8:21 | comment | added | j.p. | Hard to say, when this happens precisely. As the probabilistic algorithm runs faster than the deterministic one, it is less likely disturbed by cosmic rays. | |
| Jul 29, 2016 at 0:05 | comment | added | bkoodaa | Wow, the failure rate of a probabilistic algorithm is lower than the failure rate of deterministic algorithm - because we're at the scale where calculations errors by hardware matter. Did I get that right? | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 14:45 | vote | accept | Lukman | ||
| Jul 13, 2011 at 12:18 | history | answered | j.p. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |