[ivmi]

I can't tell if you are disagreeing with djao or not.

"I can't think of a single respectable academic researcher who thinks that the latest results threaten RSA." -- djao

Does Dan Boneh think that the latest results threaten RSA? Is there a serious argument in favor of that position?

[tptacek]

You seem to be asking two questions that my comment already answered. Yes, I'm citing Boneh as an example of someone who has suggested that Joux may have practical implications on RSA.

[djao]

You are perhaps referring to Boneh's comments at the RSA conference last February. Boneh cited the new attacks in the context of arguing that we should diversify away from RSA and DH. The implication, to me, was one of general caution and urgency. I did not get any sense of RSA itself being specifically threatened.

[tptacek]

I'm having trouble writing a response to this that reconciles your last sentence with the sentence that precedes it. I think that might be because we're on the same page already.

I'm not endorsing the article's interpretation of the talk.

[djao]

There is a difference between "Here's an example of a cryptosystem that got attacked" and "Here's an example of an attack against RSA."

[tptacek]

The intent of the talk was also to urge caution and urgency, was the point I was trying to make.

[djao]

The thing is, some people think we're already on a 10-year clock. Quantum computers represent a very real threat, and there are no theoretical obstacles to their implementation. So yes, we should be migrating to something else. These latest breakthroughs add more impetus, but I don't think they're going to get there before quantum computers (just my opinion).