Author |
Message |
Tron
Joined: 22 Oct 2010 Posts: 30
|
|
Real Simple Access |
|
I calculated the other number. It is not expected as answer and I don't see anything interesting when interpreting the number in other ways. Am I missing the punchline?
|
|
Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:49 am |
|
 |
satfreak666
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
Hi Tron,
you're right. It's my challange. I messed up the challange by printing the cleartext instead of the cipher text. I've have send Adum an update right now (I also altered the cleartext). Maybe the 6 solvers should try again after fix has been applied.
Sorry for the inconvinience guys!
SF
|
|
Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:50 am |
|
 |
Tron
Joined: 22 Oct 2010 Posts: 30
|
|
|
|
The new encoded message is larger than the modulus. This does not make much sense.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:03 am |
|
 |
satfreak666
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
Hi Tron,
ok, the modulus is
18177463113985279014593768153541854004936176165294524057336890660730144311208729
Begginers fault again: I haven't completely updated the challange text, only the source code printing out the numbers. But you seem to be on the right track Tron ,)
SF
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:12 am |
|
 |
AMindForeverVoyaging
Forum Admin
Joined: 28 May 2011 Posts: 473 Location: Germany |
|
|
|
I recommend to let one's challenge be beta-tested by (an)other person(s) before submitting it.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:56 am |
|
 |
efe

Joined: 26 Oct 2008 Posts: 45 Location: germany |
|
|
|
Hmmm.... I think that now Alice nor Charly can decrypt the message. The number must be smaller than the modulus as Tron said!
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:49 am |
|
 |
bsguedes

Joined: 24 Feb 2009 Posts: 103 Location: Porto Alegre |
|
|
|
efe, you have to use this number as modulus (adum hasn't changed that yet):
13927286537254031626323670117308341421825250505042934290710960886577880641606495
but bloody hell, it's taking some time to extract that information from this number
60 digits was easy, but 80 it's not so simple with my method (perhaps i'm not using the best way to crack this)
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:59 am |
|
 |
efe

Joined: 26 Oct 2008 Posts: 45 Location: germany |
|
|
|
Ok, now I solved it with the new modulus 
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:13 am |
|
 |
bsguedes

Joined: 24 Feb 2009 Posts: 103 Location: Porto Alegre |
|
|
|
Solved too
This one took some time to manipulate the modulus number.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:12 am |
|
 |
satfreak666
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
efe, you have to use this number as modulus (adum hasn't changed that yet):
13927286537254031626323670117308341421825250505042934290710960886577880641606495
|
No this is the cipher text. Please use the modulus i have posted here.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:15 am |
|
 |
bsguedes

Joined: 24 Feb 2009 Posts: 103 Location: Porto Alegre |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
efe, you have to use this number as modulus (adum hasn't changed that yet):
13927286537254031626323670117308341421825250505042934290710960886577880641606495
|
No this is the cipher text. Please use the modulus i have posted here. |
Whoops, you're right !
Have you already contacted adum to correct the modulus too?
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:19 am |
|
 |
satfreak666
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Ok, now I solved it with the new modulus  |
At least it ... ,) Thx.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:19 am |
|
 |
satfreak666
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
efe, you have to use this number as modulus (adum hasn't changed that yet):
13927286537254031626323670117308341421825250505042934290710960886577880641606495
|
No this is the cipher text. Please use the modulus i have posted here. |
Whoops, you're right !
Have you already contacted adum to correct the modulus too? |
Yes, I wrote adum a mail 4 hours ago ... Probably this will soon be corrected.
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:21 am |
|
 |
adum

Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 390
|
|
|
|
beta testing challenges is not a bad idea, for some that might be malformed...
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:34 pm |
|
 |
CodeX

Joined: 17 Oct 2008 Posts: 350
|
|
|
|
I would suggest just doing a dry run from scratch at least once to check you haven't gone astray somewhere
|
|
Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:11 pm |
|
 |
|