Inventors of RSA win Turing Award 24
Frisky070802 writes "The NY Times has an article on how Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman (the inventors of the eponymous RSA public-key encryption algorithm) have won the ACM's Turing award for contributions to computer science. You mean they didn't win already?"
Didn't Win Already (Score:2)
Re:Didn't Win Already (Score:1)
What does that have to do with winning the award?
Re:Didn't Win Already (Score:3, Informative)
What?? (Score:4, Funny)
So, like, the ACM committee talked to Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman over a teletypewriter and were convinced that all three were human?
Or does this mean that each of the three are, at any one time, in only of of a finite number of possible states, and can compute any computable function with their (poissibly infinite length) tapes?
They already won through patent 'royaltees' (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Verisign made a killing off charging an arm and a leg for SSL certificates. In order to support a wide variety of browsers, you needed to support the oldest certificates, and Verisign, a division of RSA, created both the need and the solution for themselves.
I agree that RSA was a wonderful creation. The fact that it was patented, and that these sly companies were able to abuse that for millions upon millions of dollars was a horrible shame in contrast.
Anyone know what day-to-day involvment R. S. and A. had in the companies that profited from their algorithm?
And any chance that Diffie/Helman or other luminaries will be recognized for their similar contributions to the field? Contributions that were not as recognized because they made their discoveries available to all?
Re:They already won through patent 'royaltees' (Score:1)
--
Re:They already won through patent 'royaltees' (Score:2)
Verisign also had a good deal with domain names and they still charge outrageous prices on them.
Stop the presses! (Score:3, Funny)
(
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
CJC
What about Koblitz and Miller? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, with a 160 bit key, ECC achieves the same level of security as 1024 bit RSA. (Another example: a 591 bit ECC key is said to possess the same security as 15000+ bit RSA. Hyperelliptic curves may achieve comparable security in even smaller keys, but they remain mostly theoretical due to poor performance and questionable security relative to elliptic curves.) And, because the keys are so much smaller -- and there are efficient techniques for scalar point multiplication over a Galois Field -- ECC tends to offer incredibly good performance.
Unfortunately, the general adoption of ECC just isn't there in the same way as RSA. Mind you, there has been some recent research in which ECC was implemented in OpenSSL (0.9.6b), but I don't think that the SSL 3.0 protocol has been extended to support it yet. Also, there is a tremendous amount of research continuing in this field to improve ECC performance (not just in software, but in elliptic curve processors for smart cards, for instance). And, of course, ANSI, IEEE, and NIST FIPS 180-2 standards are working their way thru the pipes.
But still
Re:What about Koblitz and Miller? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:eponymous (Score:1)
Hah! If I got to moderate your snipe, it definitely gets points for humor, even if I was the victim of your insult.
Actually, I've read the word in various columns and such, and this is the only time it seemed right to use it :)
And what's the address to subscribe to that list...?
Re:eponymous (Score:1)
Hate NY Times? Here ya go (Score:1)
Re:Hate NY Times? Here ya go[Better Formatting] (Score:2, Informative)
By JOHN MARKOFF
he Association of Computing Machinery plans to announce today that Ronald L. Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard M. Adleman will receive the 2002 A. M. Turing Award for their development work in public-key cryptography.
The award, which carries a $100,000 prize financed by the Intel Corporation, is given annually to leading researchers in the field of computer science.
Working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977, t
Re:Hate NY Times? Here ya go (Score:1)
Gee, and I thought it was because of copyright violations, or perhaps bad spelling.
Re:Hate NY Times? Here ya go (Score:1)