[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 21:01:21 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: broken RSA keys
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:28:03PM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
> BTW, had I not realized the above, I would now come up with an even more
> complex conspiracy theory about 149784613473514443594783892995, which is
> 0x1E3FAEDA6A4F093A7C0F5A603, so:
>
> limb[0] = 0xC0F5A603
> limb[1] = 0xA4F093A7
> limb[2] = 0xE3FAEDA6
> limb[3] = 1
>
> which satisfies:
>
> limb[1] = limb[0] + limb[2] + 2
>
> No idea why it's "+ 2" here
Actually, it's "- 2", not "+ 2". Sorry. Not that it matters, but I was
uncomfortable leaving the error uncorrected in case someone wants to try
and figure out why exactly this artifact manifests itself like it does.
There's probably an explanation of why the algorithm is likely to hit
numbers of this form, but this is beside the point for software bugs,
which is what I want us to discuss further in this thread.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
