The very-obvious omitted algorithm was discuseed e.g. in Jason Pollack's Google+ post on the subject, reshared 275 times including by Terry Tao: https://plus.google.com/114134834346472219368/posts/TKQUf47pxaa So if that's the cat you're thinking of, the bag thoroughly empty. --Michael On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Schroeppel, Richard <rschroe@sandia.gov>wrote:

I'd like to encourage Math-Funsters to postpone discussing on the list the algorithms omitted from this paper for a month, till March 15. The authors were not able to notify all the keyholders ahead of publication, so there is the potential for some nasty surprises. This request is not meant to inhibit off-list discussion; and you are welcome to let me know if you notice the cats have escaped confinement into some public place. Obviously it also doesn't apply to the algorithms disclosed in the paper.

Rich

-----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto: math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Warren Smith Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:45 PM To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] [math-fun] We don't need no stinking factorizer to break RSA... duh!!!!!!!!!

front page of NY Times just featured this paper

http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064.pdf

which is hilarious! Just when you thought you'd seen the ultimate in human stupidity...

_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun

_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun

-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.