4
$\begingroup$

A. Lenstra et al. had a paper in 2012 "Ron was wrong, Whit is right", in which one reads: "What surprised us most is that many thousands of 1024-bit RSA moduli, including thousands that are contained in still-valid X.509 certificates, offer no security at all." Has that surprise been satisfactorily explained in the meantime? I'll be particularly interested in cases where the moduli had shared factors. I mean that seems to indicate a fairly high probability that back doors could have been involved in the software that generated such moduli.

$\endgroup$
1

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.