>>11770786>a prime to the cryptographic algorithm of increasing sizeMe use big big prime as input for crypto thingy that does number thing. It get hard for big big prime.
>Any evidence that the NSA is?I assume NSA use RSA. But they may not because it could be insecure as you say.
Who really knows.
>I am not implementing cryptographic software.Your claim is that the NSA do and they have the "backdoor" to all RSA because of this.
The only way they would know your AES plaintext is if they know your key, or maybe have the computation power to brute force to get to your key.
>There isn't.Then don't use those numbers lmao. That's my whole point.
Great, the NSA provide numbers. That doesn't mean RSA or any other crypto algorithm is insecure. Which is another point I made, which I did make vague to wind you up a bit.
>And?It explains the point about using large primes.
If you have solved this problem you know that it's quite expensive, and that increasing large primes get hard to calculate through a brute force method (the only known way currently). So calculating infinitely large prime and knowing it's factors is a P != NP (?) problem.
Let me take you back: I said >Using specific numbers is implementation based.
You said
>That is false. The NSA has standards for CryptographyBut you don't agree that the standards (using specific numbers) that have been used to make libraries for crypto, are optional.
Which you further indicated that they are.
National banks for example use their own cryptographic standards and implementations that differ from the NSA.
So you can avoid using the NSA systems by adopting a different cryptographic standard resulting in a different implementation.
(decent) Banks implement their own crypto.
notice how I said implement? Well that's because algorithms are general and not specific. Meaning how I adopt RSA to my bank might use some variations in the components in RSA.
