Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 198.52.160.180 - "→External links modified: " |
→Not a typo. 521, not 512.: new section |
||
Line 256:
The first paragraph states that ECC is based on finite fields, as opposed to non-EC cryptography, which is based on plain Galois fields. However, the referenced article on [[Finite field|finite fields]] explains that finite fields and Galois fields are one and the same. I suspect the intended meaning is that non-EC crypto is based structures over finite fields which are not elliptic curves. If so, this is not clear from the text. I won't change the formulation myself, since I'm not an expert in the field. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:VecLuci|VecLuci]] ([[User talk:VecLuci#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/VecLuci|contribs]]) 04:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Not a typo. 521, not 512. ==
"Five prime fields <math>\mathbb{F}_p</math> for certain primes ''p'' of sizes 192, 224, 256, 384, and <nowiki>{{Not a typo|521}}</nowiki> bits. For each of the prime fields, one elliptic curve is recommended."
Should there be a footnote about that 521 not being a typo? It really is 521 (see [https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/62083/why-would-diffie-hellman-group-21-be-521-bits-rather-than-512] among many, many sources) but it really looks like someone mis-typed "512". [[Special:Contributions/76.216.220.191|76.216.220.191]] ([[User talk:76.216.220.191|talk]]) 04:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||