unfactorizable

Comments

• inari@piefed.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  xkcd 221

  Image

  source

  • victorz@lemmy.world ⁨52⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    I thought this has to have been the reference

    source
• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  4

  source

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    hash salt? Believe it or not, also 4

    source
  • tias@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨52⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    Fun fact: most implementations actually always use 65537 as the public key (17 was more common earlier, but rare now). It makes computations easier and faster, and doesn’t affect security much as long as you pick a hard-to-guess private key. The modulus is the thing that varies in public certificates.

    source

    • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app ⁨19⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      Isn’t RSA wholly deprecated for like… years by now?

      Oh looked it up. It’s ssh-rsa that’s deprecated because of SHA-1, and NIST wants to phase out RSA-2048 by 2030.

      source
    • zener_diode@feddit.org ⁨19⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      This is only partially true.

      RSA public keys consist of two parts:

      1. The exponent e, which is usually 65537, for the reasons you described.
      2. The modulus n, the product of the two primes used for generating an RSA keypair.

      If the public key were always completely the same, then there would be no point in making different private keys.

      source
• rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Everyone uses all these huge numbers, so no one is expecting 4. What could go wrong?

  source
• rounding_error@lemmy.today ⁨39⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

  Mr president, another script hit the intermediate certificate authority

  source
• humorlessrepost@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  My codebase requires guids, so I used 00000000-0000-4000-0000-000000000000

  source

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    You bonehead! You should have just run a Fourier transform on it.

    www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-02-01

    source
• story@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  my college roommate made this joke in 2009, complete with the ‘4’

  source

  • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Uh roommate must have predicted the future because this is about a private key for a certificate authority using the number “4” as their whole private key. As well as a couple other low digit numbers

    arstechnica.com/…/the-internet-goes-on-high-alert…

    source

    • story@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      yes! i think so! he was the one who introduced me to xkcd!

      source
  • TragicNotCute@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    I gotcha bud.

    It’s a riff on the olive meme.

    knowyourmeme.com/…/hungry-but-too-tired-to-cook-t…

    256 bit and 512 bit encryption are somewhat common. A 256 bit private key is 64 characters long (I’m simplifying this, don’t @ me about it being hex). A 512 bit private key is twice as long. That long string of random characters is what gives this type of encryption its power. It’s essentially unguessable, even with a computer and a lot of time.

    Using “4” as your private key would significantly undermine security. Hackers can’t check every possible option for a 512 bit key, but they can certainly (and trivially) try simple numbers padded by 0’s, like our “4” private key.

    You’ve taken a strong and proven system and made it trivially weak. That’s the joke. It’s not that funny, but that’s what you’re missing.

    Hope that helps.

    source

    • story@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      very helpful, thank you!!

      source
• kettuli@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Sounds legit, thanks for the tip.

  source