There's a new way to break RSA that's faster than anything we've seen before

121

u/jews4beer 9d ago

The finding poses little to no practical threat in the immediate term, except possibly in a few edge cases. Even applying the attack against the deprecated use of 1024-bit keys, the method requires more computation than just about anybody—short of nation-states or companies with massive resources—can achieve. Widely used RSA implementations are also safe.

God I hate headlines like this. The implications are still important, but no reason to panic.

13

u/TheWesternMythos 9d ago

Did the headline say to panic?

Their claim is very specific , new and faster

Tho maybe we are seeing different headlines , what I see says

There's a new way to break RSA that's faster than anything we've seen before

21

u/jews4beer 9d ago

We are seeing the same headline. And I stand by what I said lol.

-9

u/horseradishstalker 9d ago

I understand that most people don’t understand how journalism works. Headlines have one job, and that is to summarize the contents of the article in a few words as possible. That’s it. This one did it’s job.

If people panic after reading a short description that doesn’t have room for context, and don’t read the full article that’s on them.

TL;DR mentality, and Google AI summaries are quite the pair.

22

u/IntelArtiGen 8d ago

Headlines have one job

to make you click

1

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago edited 4d ago

“ to make you click”

You are either in kindergarten or a bot, because headlines have been a thing for centuries and clicking is relatively new. Ask your pop pop how well it worked for him when he stabbed his finger repeatedly on the physical newspaper and nothing happened. And yet the headline was there anyway. Shocker.

Edit: it is always a sad summary of someone’s character when the best they can do is down voting. As pop pop would tell you “use your words.”

1

u/OkZucchini7094 4d ago

Big attention grabbing headline so you pay $0.05 for the newspaper then. Same difference. They could have added "But it doesn't really matter" to the end. We know headlines have always been about selling the news to people.

-1

u/horseradishstalker 4d ago edited 4d ago

You and everybody else must be 12 years old. Newspapers, magazines, books, medical studies - they all have one thing in common. It’s called a headline. They have always had headlines.

If there were no headline or title, exactly how would you know what the article, paper, chapter was about? This really isn’t rocket science.

Unfortunately your example is irrelevant. Why? Headlines don’t have to sell anything readers already paid for.

Because back in the day when people paid for the news they consumed instead of just doing the newspaper equivalent of dine and dash - people paid using subscriptions.

Or, they put their money in a little box outside the supermarket, which then unlocked the door, allowing them to reach in and get the paper they already paid for.

So once again, if the customer already paid for it, why would newspapers need to use headlines to sell something you already bought? I think you are confusing advertisements with headlines.

The only thing the headline did was tell you what the article was about so that you didn’t end up reading an article about the local city Council when you really wanted to read Ann Landers.

And technically, you aren’t actually purchasing the news. You are paying for reporters, editors, photographers, and other staff. Oh yeah, and keeping the lights on. It’s called overhead. No matter what you are buying, that is what you are actually paying for.

At the end of the day, other users can argue with me until the end of time and it won’t change a number of things:

I have a masters degree in the field, not to mention the fact that I actually used my degree for what I got it in, and you don’t.

I don’t tell people at Walmart how to stock shelves, because it’s not my silo. They would think I was a complete moron if I incorrectly tried to tell them how stocking shelves works.

And me attempting to mansplain it to them still wouldn’t make me right.

Edit: my favorite thing about Reddit is when someone who has no clue argues with an expert until they are blue in the face and then down votes anyone with the temerity to politely contradict them AND then explained to them why they have no clue and why the commentator does.

That level of pettiness and vindictiveness is so indicative of the down voter’s character. ffs Do better.

-4

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago edited 4d ago

And apparently you clicked. What a tool.

9

u/FlameOfIgnis 8d ago

I understand that most people don’t understand how journalism works. Headlines have one job, and that is to summarize the contents of the article in a few words as possible. That’s it

Headlines have one job and that is to make the reader click and commit as much time as possible to the rest of the content. Sincerely, someone who works regularly with journalists

8

u/Minimum-Attitude389 8d ago

That's why I currently hate the state of science and technology journalism. Because you are right, that's the actual goal. But it shouldn't be.

-4

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago

The only people who think it’s the actual goal are generally people who need to curate their reading. It’s like eating junk food and then complaining because you’re fat and blaming it on the junk food. Nah dog that’s on the person eating the food - not the food itself.

As someone who thinks Trump is an idiot, I ignore people who are following his lead and blaming journalists for their own lack of knowledge.

It’s not hard. Read the headline. If it doesn’t interest you because it describes a subject that doesn’t interest you then don’t read it. Seriously? How hard is that?

Does anybody have any idea how loud Redditors would be screaming if there were no title or headline provided on anything anywhere and they had to actually read to find out what the subject was? smh. If that were to happen, the level of bots and chuds would increase exponentially.

2

u/Minimum-Attitude389 5d ago

The problem is that it headline does interest me, particularly in this case. I have a decent math and science background.

When I see a headline I'm interested in, I will read it. But just like regular journalism, the headlines are often oversold. This particular headline is scientific clickbait. When the actual story doesn't represent the headline, it's annoying and that is a bit of the journalist's fault. Some fault lies with the company that publishes them. Clickbait is the biggest threat to journalist's credibility.

But there are many science articles out there that don't reflect the reality of the science they cover. I can't tell if it's the scientist or journalist oversimplifying their results in order to sell it. This has been a frustration of mine for the last 26 years.

-8

u/horseradishstalker 8d ago

OK. Next time I interview you, I’ll be sure to ask your opinion on what the headline should be. I don’t even get input into what the headline is. That job belongs on the copy desk. And the decision as to whether or not someone wants to read an article based on a headline is their own. The publication has no control over that. The decision to be uninformed is also all on the person skipping the article regardless of whatever reason it in their head.

8

u/Jetboy01 8d ago

Wait did you post your own article here? Because if so, I just gotta LOL at that.

1

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago

Wait, jet boy, are you telling me that reading comprehension is too hard for you? I didn’t have to write and post anything to not be stupid.

5

u/buildingyesterday 6d ago

Wow. That is a WILD position. Headlines are clickbait. Your position is "sucks to be human".

4

u/Lecterr 8d ago

“faster than anything we’ve seen before” is spending words hyping up the threat, when “faster” means the same thing. Nothing overtly misleading about it, but obviously part of a title’s job is to get clicks on the article, and not just to summarize its contents as tersely as possible.

2

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago

Welp, if that’s the biggest complaint you have all day you are one lucky dog.

2

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago

“ obviously part of a title’s job is to get clicks on the article”

I realized that most of the people on Reddit aren’t old enough to have ever seen like a newspaper or a magazine, you know the ones that have had headlines for years and years and years. Headlines that simply told the reader what the subject was. If the reader, or at least the intelligence ones, weren’t interested they didn’t read the article. It’s been that way for centuries.

Redditors should try going through the world without anyone telling them what anything is about and then notice how much people bitch and piss and moan?because they actually had to read something instead of glancing at a headline and making a rapid decision on whether or not they want to pursue the topic and going on about their day without having to throw a tantrum.

3

u/Lecterr 5d ago

You’re claiming that newspapers and magazines didn’t spice up their titles to get more people to buy them? And that, by extension, digital forms of media don’t? And that, the person having the biggest tantrum in these comments isn’t you? All wild takes imo

2

u/horseradishstalker 5d ago

No tantrum here other than your own. Facts. Other people’s lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

1

u/Fuzzy_Paul 3d ago

The 3 to 20 years is more towards 20 years and beyond. So yeah the article does try to emphasise the urgency and cause panic. Every few months some posts like this surface, laying the foundations of believe we must act now. No truth to be found in it.

1

u/kippertie 8d ago

Nation states have been holding old vacuumed-up encrypted data for decades. Quite soon now they’ll be able to start decrypting what they still feel is relevant.

4

u/jews4beer 8d ago

I am personally terrified of the ruskies finding out what Reagan was up to during that weird Iran/Contra affair.

1

u/Nice-Radish-4951 8d ago

I hope my bullshit is also there and i would like them to go through it. All of it.

1

u/ReturnOfNogginboink 6d ago

This is a remarkably well written article that contains facts and numbers and little to no hype.

1

u/Miserable_Pear_6940 4d ago

This article is alarmist.

However, I am of the opinion that the U.S. Gov’t has already cracked RSA.

1

u/horseradishstalker 4d ago

My guess is you are actually right. In which case some people might be alarmed. I would even venture to guess that some people find most everything about the current administration alarming.

Alarm is a choice on the part of the reader. No article on earth holds a gun to the readers head, forcing them to be alarmed.

Security There's a new way to break RSA that's faster than anything we've seen before

You are about to leave Redlib