2013.09.18 22:37:57 (380430513166503937) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "nikita borisov (@nikitab)" (380389002588594176):
Conficker had well over 2^50 bytes of RAM. Even a badly optimized RSA-1024 NFS attack doesn't need that much. @nikitab @kragen @arstechnica
2013.09.18 19:07:38 (380377587794456577) from "You and 52 others (@bahstgwamt)", replying to "You and 52 others (@bahstgwamt)" (380377204812550145):
@nikitab @arstechnica My thought is that since the keys were only 1024-bit keys, a large supercomputer at least could break them, no?
2013.09.18 19:47:25 (380387598796996608) from "nikita borisov (@nikitab)", replying to "You and 52 others (@bahstgwamt)" (380377587794456577):
@kragen @arstechnica http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/389 estimated several million core-years to factor RSA-1024.
2013.09.18 19:50:59 (380388495224631296) from "You and 52 others (@bahstgwamt)", replying to "nikita borisov (@nikitab)" (380387598796996608):
@nikitab @arstechnica So a large botnet or NSA could do several keys per year if not Amdahl's-law constrained?
2013.09.18 19:53:00 (380389002588594176) from "nikita borisov (@nikitab)", replying to "You and 52 others (@bahstgwamt)" (380388495224631296):
@kragen @arstechnica botnet wouldn't have enough RAM for the computation, but the NSA, yes, possibly.