-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 181
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
asm/ct_inverse_mod_256-*.pl: fix another corner case.
Thanks to Guido Vranken for report.
- Loading branch information
Showing
2 changed files
with
45 additions
and
19 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fd45352
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was this only an implementation bug or did it correspond to an error in the Pornin20 paper?
fd45352
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's kind of a trick question. Thing is that the implementation doesn't follow the paper literally. Most notably line 22 of the algorithm 2 is different here, there is no
mod m
at each iteration. Instead the reduction is done once elsewhere. And the problem was on the interface to this common reduction, something that is not part of the paper. This is why the question is a "trick," either of the possible answers is formally incorrect.fd45352
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though one can say following. As far as I understand the referred error was about how approximations of 'a' and 'b' were described. The problem in question is not related to the way approximations are constructed. So at least it doesn't correspond to the error.