| 1 |
On Friday 27 June 2008, kashani wrote: |
| 2 |
> > The thing about this keys is, that there is no better way than to |
| 3 |
> > brute force such keys. The algorithm uses a function which inverse |
| 4 |
> > is a known hard problem which resides in NP, which is a class of |
| 5 |
> > functions equal to just guessing. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't believe this is true. The algorithm uses a function which is |
| 8 |
> *assumed* to be a hard problem. You assume the problem is hard |
| 9 |
> because you and anyone you know have not been able to make it easy. |
| 10 |
> That does not mean that someone has not discovered some math that |
| 11 |
> does make it easy. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It's more than a thumb-suck assumption. In maths, "assume" is overloaded |
| 14 |
to have an entirely different meaning to what it has in everyday life, |
| 15 |
much like "theory" in science. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The assumption comes from all the solid maths surrounding the NP |
| 18 |
problem. As any decent mathematician/cryptologist will tell you, |
| 19 |
cracking this one is the current holy grail in their field and the |
| 20 |
amount of man-power being applied to solving it is staggering. Neil |
| 21 |
mentioned GCHQ developing public key several years before RSA, but do |
| 22 |
note that RSA still had the same bright idea that GCHQ had, only a few |
| 23 |
short years later. There are thousands of examples in math and science |
| 24 |
of the same huge advances being made by two parties independently - |
| 25 |
because they are working from the same known base. I feel quite |
| 26 |
confident that the NP problem will be no different. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives