Remix.run Logo
▲ FiloSottile an hour ago

Given how expensive this computation would have been in 1997, it makes perfect sense they'd taken months, but even if we assume they tried all timestamps of 1997 and selected arbitrarily among the first 16 viable candidate of any timestamp, that's just ~30 bits of freedom.

Finding out there is a class of weak 256-bit elliptic curves so large that they can be hit randomly with 2^30 tries would be a cryptanalytic breakthrough analogous to discovering all elliptic curve cryptography is broken.

Read section 3.1 of the Koblitz and Menezes paper. It was already implausible with 160 bits of freedom. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018

If you want to believe the NSA knows ECC is broken and chose to risk moving the US government to it and somehow no one figured out the same break in 30 years, you're free to do so. But pretending the seed choice plays any role in that theory is over.

▲palisade 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"..chose to risk moving the US government to it.."

Oof, about that...

▲skew-aberration an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As a complete layman, I do wonder why n grows with each subsequent curve, rather than with number of bits. Does this not suggest they were 'searching harder'?

▲edelbitter an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>they can be hit randomly with 2^30 tries

More precisely: not very random tries.

▲mswphd 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

unless your guess is that the hypothetical ECC weakness is somehow correlated with the LCG structure, the draws from the LCG are as good as random.

It is possible such a correlation could occur. but it would be much weirder than this being the result of a random search, which would already be very weird.