Naïve RSA decryption in PythonIs my Encryption Module Secure?Encoding and decoding small strings of textC#...
Air travel with refrigerated insulin
Weird lines in Microsoft Word
Turning a hard to access nut?
Writing in a Christian voice
Unfrosted light bulb
PTIJ: Why do we make a Lulav holder?
I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?
Have any astronauts/cosmonauts died in space?
Worshiping one God at a time?
Homology of the fiber
Which partition to make active?
How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?
Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?
Exposing a company lying about themselves in a tightly knit industry: Is my career at risk on the long run?
What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?
Should a narrator ever describe things based on a characters view instead of fact?
Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?
Do I need an EFI partition for each 18.04 ubuntu I have on my HD?
Unable to get newly inserted Product's Id using After Plugin for Catalog Product save controller method
Why I don't get the wanted width of tcbox?
Print last inputted byte
What is the tangent at a sharp point on a curve?
How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?
Would mining huge amounts of resources on the Moon change its orbit?
Naïve RSA decryption in Python
Is my Encryption Module Secure?Encoding and decoding small strings of textC# AES + RSA Encryption ImplementationEncryption in C#My images have secrets A.K.A. the making of aesthetic passwords V.2ISO mode encryption/decryption with BouncyCastleEncryption/decryption by matrix multiplication in CC++ RSA ImplementationGenerate two random primes and find their totientPython RSA/DSA File Cryptography, Key Generation, Key Protection
$begingroup$
I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
python performance homework cryptography
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
python performance homework cryptography
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
python performance homework cryptography
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
$endgroup$
I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
python performance homework cryptography
python performance homework cryptography
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
edited 2 hours ago
200_success
130k17154419
130k17154419
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
asked 7 hours ago
Chad TChad T
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.
There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.
kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):
import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random
random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))
This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.
There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)
So decrypt can be written as:
def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)
With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.
Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215712%2fna%25c3%25afve-rsa-decryption-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.
There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.
kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):
import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random
random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))
This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.
There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)
So decrypt can be written as:
def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)
With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.
Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.
There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.
kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):
import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random
random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))
This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.
There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)
So decrypt can be written as:
def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)
With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.
Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.
There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.
kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):
import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random
random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))
This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.
There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)
So decrypt can be written as:
def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)
With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.
Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
$endgroup$
Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.
There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.
kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):
import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random
random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)
def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec
(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))
This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.
There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)
So decrypt can be written as:
def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)
With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.
Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
answered 4 hours ago
haroldharold
1,32867
1,32867
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215712%2fna%25c3%25afve-rsa-decryption-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
