Thanks to the OP.
That was interesting.
Here's my Quick summary:
They broke what is called Pairing Based Cryptography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing-based_cryptography
The press release from NICT can be found here:
http://www.nict.go.jp/en/press/2012/06/18en-1.html
Remember, we are using ECDSA and every public key is buried under the sha-256 hash and RIPEMD-160 hash.
As long as you never store value on a key that has already been used where ECDSA public is now known by all, you would be relatively safe.
If methods were found that made ECDSA significantly weaker, it would still be extremely difficult and very expensive if not impossible to steal from anyone that never reuses a key.
Topic: Fujitsu Cracks Next-Gen Cryptography Standard (Read 3046 times)
Isn't the point that as long as we use sufficiently large key sizes, it doesn't matter?
No, because ECDSA and RSA are based on problems that are considered hard in today's mathematics. That does not preclude them from being easy in future mathematics. The underlying assumptions of discrete logarithms and integer factorizations are that they will remain hard, but there is no guarantee.
And then of course the whole quantum computing thing.
It is true that shorter bit length keys in known crypto systems like ECDSA and RSA get tested and broken and this is often the basis for how long a key needs to be to keep safe. ECC keys of length 112 have already been broken but if tomorrow some researchers cracked a key length much greater then security analysts would probably recommend using longer keys rather than just giving up on ECC altogether.
A 112 bit ECC key length is only about as effective as 56-bits of security though, and DES (56-bit) was broken in 20ish hours via brute force over a decade ago. It lasted for 20 years though. 
To the best of my knowledge, which isn't that extensive, this just raises the bar on pairing-based cryptography in terms of bit length. But bitcoin doesn't use or have any connection with that cryptography. So unless they discovered some techniques that may be applied to ECC then it doesn't sound like it has any bearing.
It is true that shorter bit length keys in known crypto systems like ECDSA and RSA get tested and broken and this is often the basis for how long a key needs to be to keep safe. ECC keys of length 112 have already been broken but if tomorrow some researchers cracked a key length much greater then security analysts would probably recommend using longer keys rather than just giving up on ECC altogether.
From wikipedia:
It is true that shorter bit length keys in known crypto systems like ECDSA and RSA get tested and broken and this is often the basis for how long a key needs to be to keep safe. ECC keys of length 112 have already been broken but if tomorrow some researchers cracked a key length much greater then security analysts would probably recommend using longer keys rather than just giving up on ECC altogether.
From wikipedia:
Quote
The hardest ECC scheme (publicly) broken to date had a 112-bit key for the prime field case and a 109-bit key for the binary field case. For the prime field case this was broken in July 2009 using a cluster of over 200 PlayStation 3 game consoles and could have been finished in 3.5 months using this cluster when running continuously. For the binary field case, it was broken in April 2004 using 2600 computers for 17 months.
Isn't the point that as long as we use sufficiently large key sizes, it doesn't matter?
No, because ECDSA and RSA are based on problems that are considered hard in today's mathematics. That does not preclude them from being easy in future mathematics. The underlying assumptions of discrete logarithms and integer factorizations are that they will remain hard, but there is no guarantee.
And then of course the whole quantum computing thing.
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
No. Bitcoin uses ECDSA, not pairing based crypto.
Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
Ie., both ECC and RSA have been "cracked" in the sense that a private key has been deduced from a public key, but only for key sizes much smaller than the ones we use in practice. So just because an x-bit key used in "pairing-based cryptography" has been compromised, doesn't mean that this method of encryption isn't useful - only that larger keys need to be used.
pfffew, that was close 
I can't say I'm overly familiar with the pairing-based crypto, but I think it's mainly used in multi-party key agreement protocols.
Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
Is it possible that it could affect multisignature transactions in any way?Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
I can't say I'm overly familiar with the pairing-based crypto, but I think it's mainly used in multi-party key agreement protocols.
Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
Is it possible that it could affect multisignature (M of N, P2SH) transactions in any way? Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
No. Bitcoin uses ECDSA, not pairing based crypto.
Pretty much every crypto used today relies either on integer factorisation or discrete logarithm problem. Those still haven't been cracked.
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
No. Bitcoin uses ECDSA, not pairing based crypto.
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
No. Bitcoin uses ECDSA, not pairing based crypto.
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
^ would be nice to know :/
Does Bitcoin even use any of the cryptography mentioned? I didn't see a specific technology mentioned, just "pairing-based cryptography".
The article mentions that this is just a "new record". Meaning that they have done it before, just faster this time.
So the fact that they have cracked it before and Bitcoin was still considered secure would lead me to believe that this time it should not cause much of a ripple.
So the fact that they have cracked it before and Bitcoin was still considered secure would lead me to believe that this time it should not cause much of a ripple.
Basically, Fujitsu just bought Bitcoin.
Using that logic, Fujitsu also just bought every bank in the G-20... not likely, but let's wait for the opinion of those who actually know something about this, shall we?
Ya, I have no idea...
How is that?
If they implement that on Bitcoin it will take eons to solve a block .
watching...
Basically, Fujitsu just bought Bitcoin.
Using that logic, Fujitsu also just bought every bank in the G-20... not likely, but let's wait for the opinion of those who actually know something about this, shall we?
Jump to: