From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9a441a9594e85d08 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Markus Kuhn Subject: Re: Bignum modular types in Ada95 Date: 1998/01/30 Message-ID: <34D1ED17.D788435@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 320572575 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34CE568C.55D7E23D@cl.cam.ac.uk> <34CF3E78.F816DB5@cl.cam.ac.uk> <34D082F9.ABEC0D3B@elca-matrix.ch> <34D11876.5059EDD4@cl.cam.ac.uk> <34D1CD35.8BEEAB7C@elca-matrix.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mats Weber wrote: > > > If we have arbitrary length string operations, arbitrary > > length integer operations shouldn't be that much additional > > hazzle, and the popularity that arithmetic with huge numbers > > has gained through the numerous asymmetric cryptoalgorithms > > out there (RSA, Diffie-Hellman, ElGamal, DSS, all the new > > elliptic curve stuff, etc.) surely justifies the investment. > > Yes, but for all such applications, efficiency is so important that it must be > part of the specification, and I think that if you get into coding such > applications, then you will be much better off if you have complete control > over your bignum algorithms. Not once there is hardware support available for such operations and we still want to product strictly portable code. Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: