this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
130 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

89005 readers
3115 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
130
There's a new way to break RSA that's faster than anything we've seen before (arstechnica.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not about to get into the weeds about P vs NP to explain a concept to someone that doesn't know much about encryption in the first place. I'm aware that factoring isn't really NP complete, but P vs NP is about solving vs verifying solutions for something in Polynomial time, which can't be done via brute force for RSA keys.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

really NP complete

I don't care who you want to get in the weeds with or what you wish to spar about, you're just not correct.

There is no almost NP complete. There are strong and weak variants, sure, and those have particular implications.

But you're drawing conclusions that don't exist from definitions that you clearly don't understand.

Signed: Somebody who has taught theory of computation for over a decade.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If you want to be pedantic, fine. Integer factoring is not in P. Therefore the math used to encrypt RSA is not in P. The usage of integer factoring to encrypt therefore means it can't be decrypted in P using brute force. That's the point I'm making.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

We actually don't know if integer factorization is not in P, though.

Right now, I think most of us would guess that it is a prime candidate for NP Intermediate. Hence why I mentioned it earlier.

And you absolutely can solve it in polynomial time just not with classical architectures.