You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am a cryptography graduate student from China, and I have been exploring your implementation of the Boneh-Durfee attack. I find your work very insightful and helpful for my studies.
I have a question regarding the polynomial used in the implementation, specifically pol = 1 + x * (A + y). I understand that in RSA, the usual relation is e * d ≡ 1 (mod φ(N)). I'm curious about the effect of modifying this to e * (d - φ(N)) ≡ 1 (mod φ(N)), as theoretically, these should be equivalent modulo φ(N).
Could you please clarify the following:
If there would be any impacts or necessary adjustments in the codebase if the polynomial is modified to explicitly reflect e * (d - φ(N)).
Any insights you could provide would be very beneficial for my understanding and academic research.
Thank you very much for your time and for sharing your valuable work.
Best regards,
Windy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello David,
I am a cryptography graduate student from China, and I have been exploring your implementation of the Boneh-Durfee attack. I find your work very insightful and helpful for my studies.
I have a question regarding the polynomial used in the implementation, specifically pol = 1 + x * (A + y). I understand that in RSA, the usual relation is e * d ≡ 1 (mod φ(N)). I'm curious about the effect of modifying this to e * (d - φ(N)) ≡ 1 (mod φ(N)), as theoretically, these should be equivalent modulo φ(N).
Could you please clarify the following:
If there would be any impacts or necessary adjustments in the codebase if the polynomial is modified to explicitly reflect e * (d - φ(N)).
Any insights you could provide would be very beneficial for my understanding and academic research.
Thank you very much for your time and for sharing your valuable work.
Best regards,
Windy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: