Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bit counts column in table?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a binary digit column? JidGom 19:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure. Any volunteers? :) -- Schnee 19:48, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok did it... Counted bits with the Unix command
echo "ibase=10; obase=2; $NUMBER" |bc |tr -d '\\\n' |wc -c
JidGom 01:16, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great. ^_^ -- Schnee 23:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Distinguish different naming schemes in table?

Wouldn't it be better to distinguish between those numbers which are labelled for the number of bits (new system) and those which are labelled for the number of decimal digits (old system)? At the moment the table feels confusing because it does not appear to be in numerical order, unless I have made some mistake. --Mysteronald 17:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be helpful if we could distinguish them a little more clearly. Perhaps we could split the table into two consecutive tables showing the two types? — Matt Crypto 19:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed this by color-coding the numbers. —Lowellian (reply) 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

names of functions

should be specified in the the mathematics section.--MarSch 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 54 RSA numbers

I have proposed to merge the 54 RSA number articles into RSA numbers (which currently redirects here). See Talk:RSA numbers for the discussion and comment there. Note that the article RSA Factoring Challenge itself is not part of the proposed merger. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

other challenge

are there other similar challenges?

The "RSA Factoring Challenge" vs. "The New RSA Factoring Challenge"

I think it's a bit problematic that the article is titled RSA Factoring Challenge but it presently fails to distinguish between the original challenge issued 1991-03-18 [1] and "The New RSA Factoring Challenge" which was announced in 2001 [2][3][4].

The original challenge as posed in 1991 set 41 RSA numbers, RSA-100 through RSA-500, and in 1997 four more RSA numbers were added: RSA-155, RSA-232, RSA-309, and RSA-617.[5] In addition to those, there were a whole bunch of "partition numbers" which I don't quite understand, but they should at least be mentioned in the article.[6][7].

RSA-129 was not part of the RSA Factoring Challenge, so in my view it should not be mentioned in this article.

The New RSA Factoring Challenge, announced in 2001, completely replaced the original RSA Factoring Challenge, yet the article at present does not mention this. If you read the article as currently written, you would think that it was the original challenge (introduced in 1991) that was cancelled in 2007. The New RSA Factoring Challenge involved just eight numbers: RSA-576, RSA-640, RSA-704, RSA-768, RSA-896, RSA-1024, RSA-1536, and RSA-2048. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the new challenge has also been removed. A.entropy (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean for AES?

If RSA-768 has been cracked, does that mean AES-256 is insecure? Or are they two completely different things? XQx (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RSA and AES are completely unrelated; symmetric ciphers (such as AES) always use much shorter keys and are still secure. See key size for explanation. -- intgr [talk] 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on RSA Factoring Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507091636/http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2092 to http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2092
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408020446/http://mathworld.wolfram.com/packages/RSANumbers.m to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/packages/RSANumbers.m
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430201033/http://www.certicom.com/index.php?action=ecc%2Cecc_challenge to https://www.certicom.com/index.php?action=ecc%2Cecc_challenge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)