Talk:RSA code: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
m (→‎Split the task?: tidy text + small n)
m (→‎RSA129 as an example: encoding tidy and more on blocking)
Line 49: Line 49:
: [http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/crypt-intro/node21.html More info on the challenge text and signature]
: [http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/crypt-intro/node21.html More info on the challenge text and signature]
: [[wp:Modular_exponentiation|Modular exponentiation]] will challenge any naive implementation of RSA. Your bignums may blow up decrypting the message above. This would be a worthy prerequisite task.
: [[wp:Modular_exponentiation|Modular exponentiation]] will challenge any naive implementation of RSA. Your bignums may blow up decrypting the message above. This would be a worthy prerequisite task.
: The RSA 129 blocking was to encode " "=0, A=1,.. Z=26 and encode them by 100's so that 200805 was THE.
: The RSA 129 character encoding was " "=0, A=1,.. Z=26 by 100's so that 200805 was THE.


-[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 15:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC) update: --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 15:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC) update: --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 58: Line 58:
* RSA encryption / decryption
* RSA encryption / decryption
* modular exponentiation with large integer support - new/modified
* modular exponentiation with large integer support - new/modified
* message encoding/decoding (i.e. blocking)- different/clarified
* message encoding/decoding - different/clarified
* use the keys, text, and numbers from the 1977 RSA129 challenge from SciAm - new
* use the keys, text, and numbers from the 1977 RSA129 challenge from SciAm - new
* validating that all the numbers, text, and routines work correctly - new/different
* validating that all the numbers, text, and routines work correctly - new/different
* message blocking - not needed for messages shorter than about 64 characters - could be left out or optional

Just wondering the best way to proceed.
Just wondering the best way to proceed.
Should we put a note to task writers not to proceed at this point until this is clarified or changed?
Should we put a note to task writers not to proceed at this point until this is clarified or changed?