All of this "graphical look" stuff makes no sense unless the base is specified.. and the base has to do a lot with the numbers one is analyzing.
Posted on 2002-05-08 05:39:01 by Maverick

All of this "graphical look" stuff makes no sense unless the base is specified.. and the base has to do a lot with the numbers one is analyzing.


Do the two 17's you're writing down seem to have something in common?

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 06:33:36 by sch.jnn
lo sch.jnn, i think many people here would like to see some proven that you are really able to do what you say. what about defactoring my attachment? it is a 1024 bits N

good luck.
Posted on 2002-05-08 07:34:20 by lifewire

All what I told here is actually enough to solve the problem, but it's somehow cryptic.
Your so funny and recursive. :grin:
Posted on 2002-05-08 07:47:37 by bitRAKE
Well, I Like this game....:)

If there is an answer.....it must be super simple.....
as simple as reversing the process....how do you multiply?

and we are given the first digit to start a process....

B
Posted on 2002-05-08 07:59:58 by Brad

lo sch.jnn, i think many people here would like to see some proven that you are really able to do what you say. what about defactoring my attachment?


Your 1024 challenge:

120168128079460709649847139437365583172109566455341379628190536801701398589429922517006479605741153286526635771809584092832441814594148429474311381689612988102642716750282506757830374267762086961735000570992946010329225033407794661438724119304348356852574809006380167426180405060081541632046713380590969117809

would take me about 31 days to solve. Tola's about 60. I don't mind doing them, even both. More challenges are coming by email. Other's will come up, and when I've got 80 years or passed we might continue to talk about the algo, if I'm going to remember it, and if Internet is still 'in', and if you or me are still alive. So I could shut up silently and continue what I've been doing the least 3 months: doubt if it was a good thing or not to offer a solution.

Undoubtedly many people don't see this with entusiasm. I am personally involved if this solution becomes public. My wallet is filled by developing encryption software for medium and big companies and banks. Don't believe me just a stupid fool who found accidentally something. It happened because I doubted that factoring m would be the only way to get pq, that's all.

The more I come to the juice, the more people start to block. That's actually what I expected. Strangely, if something has success despite of all problems, those people are the the first to reappear. Most of them are highly qualified and do know a lot of mathematics theory and practice, for sure much more than I do.

My question to all doubting people is: are you SURE there is no other way than factoring? Do you personally know this? If not, you trust other people tellings, and we could continue here as if nothing else happened, we would just have a different opinion ;)

That's all folk's I've some work now.

Giovanni

PS: I am not fed up. But I would prefer to talk, write and exchange more important informations. bitRake told me to be patient. Thit is what I am asking you, too :)
Posted on 2002-05-08 09:25:02 by sch.jnn
Giovanni, I am certain you have tried your method on some larger numbers - otherwise you would just be a fool. :tongue: I'm am still very curious, and will invest some free time when I have it. Are you still saying that you haven't programmed the algo - your estimates are based on doing it all by hand? And yet you have been programming for some time? This doesn't make sense to me.
      17       17      17     17    17

x 111111 x 11111 x 1111 x 111 x 11
-------- ------- ------ ----- ----
17 17 17 17 17
17 17 17 17 17
17 17 17 17 ----
17 17 17 ----- 187
17 17 ------ 1887
17 ------- 18887
-------- 188887
1888887
It looks pretty - I imagine looking down a long hallway,
or maybe Zzzz... in a cartoon. :rolleyes:
Posted on 2002-05-08 09:38:33 by bitRAKE
Giovanni,

Yes, patience :) there will always be people who want the answers without enjoying the rewards of solving themselves...

I appreciate, your approach!!!!

It did take you 6 mo's to see it....so I assume were not going to immediatly see it, even with your clues.....but soon :)

Brad
Posted on 2002-05-08 09:38:57 by Brad

Giovanni, I am certain you have tried your method on some larger numbers - otherwise you would just be a fool. :tongue: I'm am still very curious, and will invest some free time when I have it. Are you still saying that you haven't programmed the algo - your estimates are based on doing it all by hand? And yet you have been programming for some time? This doesn't make sense to me.


I am a programmer, with human limits. All day and all week my brain is "overflowed" with extreme security problems which have to be solved without repercussions to existing software. After daily 9 to 10 hours of this kind of work (20 minutes pause), I go home and do my company stuff, reply to email and so on. Eventually I will eat, and ususally I go to bed late, because I am too tired to sleep. This is the reason why I am out of my head. Don't worry, I'm used to it :) After 20 years of sleepless responsabilities I see myself degraded to a mediocre System Programmer, and just because I'm specialized into Assembly and keep myself in touch with the outer world, I didn't degrade there (yet). I'd need some months of rest to reach a holysome carry flaw.

I do the algo all by hand, because on paper I can scroll up and down without writing a single row of code. My software has been written some time ago by some biologic process I ignore, and works fine so far. Sometimes I correct a digit on code and eventually I print another page, especially when I determined new one.

Your 17's design is impressive. Did you notice that you wrote down a lot of 17's, all the same, while eventually you could vary the 11 to 111 or 23 or something else. Did you notice you do actually multiply always the same number?

Now, when you pass to something more interesting, you'll see more relationships, since a multiple of a number is a sequence of the same number one below the other, and summed. 17 * 5:

17
17
17
17
17
---
??

Sorry I'm too tired to calc this :) Anyway, this is our *vague* constant, which becomes rapidly important as products grow. Let's say you get m which ends by 117809 (lifewire sample), the reverse engined last digit, despite of the 3*3 or 7*7 or 1*9, will be always 9. The second from right is 0, which teorically could come from 1+9, and if it does, the stage obove is the same as the one below, and their endings are 19. Do you see what I mean?

x19
xx19
------
xx09

Have some fun :)

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 11:00:25 by sch.jnn

I am a programmer, with human limits.
Don't forget that first you are human, then programmer. :)

I see what you mean. But doesn't this just give you a tree of possible products (expanding exponentially). It can be pruned as you go along to reduce the possiblities. I'll code up a quick test using 32-bit numbers -- shouldn't be too hard - I'll use base 16 to make it easier.

Posted on 2002-05-08 11:26:25 by bitRAKE

Which brings us to a discussion of pass codes and keys. How many of you have ever had a password such as AAAAAAA? or even AAAAAAAB?

This leads us to an analysis of the human brain. *Nobody* uses such lame passwords because *any cr@cker* will go through that password first. So *real cr@ckers* don't check those passwords anymore. Since we want to reduce our load, *we* don't check the obvious, since the obvious is avoided by *everyone.*


Revising the pages I noted I missed this. Actually I can tell you, a RA (Registration Authority) of my nearer knowledge does use '*****...' as a password, *unique to all their users*. This original password allowes anybody to acceed to sensitive data of the proper concurrence. The world is small and some people are really stupid, despite of their intelligence they showed when they were assumed. :(

I wonder if the password to their (RA) private key would be 'bbbbbbb'? Hopefully, the CA (Certification Authority) will have a better sense of humour!


Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 12:42:55 by sch.jnn
More common passwords on lists include verbs. I dont know why, because do any of you or *have* any of you used a verb or adjective for a password? Such as loving, happily, jumped... etc? I think a lot of those are removed from lists now a days, because it just doesn't make sense for someone to have a verb for a password. Passwords usually relate to something in your life, or some weird personal acronymn.
Posted on 2002-05-08 12:50:12 by Asm_Freak

I see what you mean. But doesn't this just give you a tree of possible products (expanding exponentially). It can be pruned as you go along to reduce the possiblities. I'll code up a quick test using 32-bit numbers -- shouldn't be too hard - I'll use base 16 to make it easier.


It gives me a tree of products, and not only one. I have to suppose, too, that other numbers are involved, such as 1, 3, 7. But allready with klimbing up the stages, I could find out, which one's aren't included. They become simply less and less important, the more ending numbers I find out.

For example, if I found out, 19 are the final endings, it is difficult to assume that a 7*7 (49) could make our case, because the CARRY wastes our final result. The problem is, how to find enough ending numbers to allow us to say, '19' are fixed. This is done by assumption, and you compose some partial stages until the result is partially even (partial match).

Then you verify if any of the partial stages could contain invalid values. If they do, you roll slightly back and try again. Once you get a stable ending number, you CAN FORGET about it and virtually your number becomes smaller (don't forget the result though).

If you don't get any stability, it's probable you missed the right (ending) factor couple, therefore the previous becomes less important. Tip: ususally it is enough to delimit your research up to the first 0 coming from right, which is a 'special case', why, you'll see when you go into it.

All: Publishing has started. Please stop sending me challenges. Please help yourself! Maybe sometimes I am in standby, but I'm watching you :) The Who Is On Line is a great tool!!!

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 13:50:57 by sch.jnn

All: Publishing has started. Please stop sending me challenges.

Giovanni
This makes me think your program is finished, good luck. ;)
Posted on 2002-05-08 13:58:03 by bitRAKE

This makes me think your program is finished, good luck. ;)


No. It's only I start to talk about details. The game has passed the introduction and copyright screen, options are set, Level one. It's a multilevel game with some hidden levels, especially the algo which speeds up everything :)

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 14:12:03 by sch.jnn
Oh, I see you want to know what others come up with for pruning algorithms. Or, do you have sufficient pruning and want to give hints all along the way... ;)
Posted on 2002-05-08 14:16:27 by bitRAKE

Oh, I see you want to know what others come up with for pruning algorithms. Or, do you have sufficient pruning and want to give hints all along the way... ;)


Yes. Cowork is required. One brain may see a lot, but not all implements. We all need to reach at least Level 2. At Level 3 somebody might go for the RSA-576. Winner is the one who catches the price. Not me ;)

Tip for General Prime Sieve fans: Once we established a fixed ending of more than 1 digit, start to sieve all probable primes with this ending number. The more digits we find, the faster the sieve will be. I would call this a Reverse Prime Sieve, has anyone patented it yet? Publishing some of these numbers would be nice, especially from the silent guests.

Tip to all others: it's not necessary to sieve!

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-08 14:29:45 by sch.jnn



Do the two 17's you're writing down seem to have something in common?

Giovanni
Sorry, but I have no time to dedicate to this.

It would be cool, though, to see you found the factors of the product that Tola challenged you to solve.

If not.. peace. But I have no time to follow your games, I already have others ones to play with.

If you don't want to disclose your method that's very comprehensible: but why do you give so many "hints" to others to solve it? Aren't you going a bit too far maybe? What is your interest, in the end? It's a bit contraddictory, don't you see.

IMO it's ok to talk in general terms about it.. but you're really playing games here. That makes zero sense at the end.

---

Tola's key here again, in case you want to give a demonstration (otherwise, again, I don't get why you give so many hints around but don't want to disclose the technique - I see a bit of contraddiction in here - don't help others go against your very own interests.. what are you doing?):

Public exponent:
65537

Public modulus:
19865587416304612150728302784331791297706084718427
77678168600167058345577275916901537177508019436834
32967563267175672106228422590259939228072899837493
94009489041321995601422359062765078032665869134047
07926220255868457408402005432223515061779224242687
77950794351060740623780702158115079329593722308276
55425812006962154822675491927457065206398832298250
85135088871132654299744047275284067893257624658303
41100552853877561069583473327036584426267105526835
25816265771310099259553594115469075946519415025317
31924536792638324216556842503725581615436340716263
61704222388002055858633177748930706814673348854533
10812512126105233

---
Posted on 2002-05-08 17:54:52 by Maverick
Come On.... this all makes sense to me:

Giovanni, is confident that he has discovered a procedure that works.....and confident enough that he's ahead enough with the development that he can share.....and if anything goes perfect, he may even be able to improve his procedure....while he is finishing it.....remember, he has already demonstrated that he is willing and "trying" to share his discovery.....and as always....with any algorithm....there is a chance that it doesn't work 100% of the time....but I believe Giovanni is 95% sure he's got it.....

Again, I appreciate his efforts to include us.....he didn't have to...

Brad
Posted on 2002-05-08 18:07:32 by Brad
My post of above was written many hours ago (in response to his last post towards me), but I could post it only now. I've read only now the more recent posts.

I agree that your assumptions sound logical, and are certainly a possibility.
Posted on 2002-05-08 18:12:25 by Maverick