GPU to 72 status... - Page 143

Dubslow · 2012-10-24, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

What you said was wrong.

Using port 443 (HTTPS) does not guarantee security.

He never said that.

All he said was why bother with port 80 if port 443 is working and secured properly?

chalsall · 2012-10-24, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

He never said that.

All he said was why bother with port 80 if port 443 is working and secured properly?

Actually he did. Please see his post above dated 21 Oct 12, 11:19.

I removed a weird link to GoDaddy in that post which appeared to be an affiliate link. As in, he would have derived income for anyone who purchased a SSL Certificate after following that link.

I stand by my statement that you can not rely on SSL (nominally provided over port 443) to ensure security.

JMLX · 2012-10-24, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Actually he did. Please see his post above dated 21 Oct 12, 11:19.

I removed a weird link to GoDaddy in that post which appeared to be an affiliate link. As in, he would have derived income for anyone who purchased a SSL Certificate after following that link.

I stand by my statement that you can not rely on SSL (nominally provided over port 443) to ensure security.

YOU.. ARE A NUT JOB. Reading your word is like watching a freaking train wreck.

kracker · 2012-10-24, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMLX

YOU.. ARE A NUT JOB. Reading your word is like watching a freaking train wreck.

Huh?

chalsall · 2012-10-24, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

Huh?

JMLX is swl551's brother.

They work together....

dbaugh · 2012-10-27, 07:17

This seemed like the most recent reasonably pertinent post with which to insert this question. Finding a factor overwrites exponent status history. Since a lot of exponents are found with ECM, how can the bit level of exhaustive search on factored exponents be determined? e.g., Exponent n shows TF to 65 bits. An 85 bit facotr is reported. How can someone subsequently know that 66 to 84(!) has not been searched?

firejuggler · 2012-10-27, 09:55

Why would we have to know that?
It's proven composite and the proof is a factor.

dbaugh · 2012-10-27, 10:21

The distribution of factors of various sizes is interesting, but I think the biggest reason is some sort of OCD.

Bdot · 2012-10-27, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbaugh

This seemed like the most recent reasonably pertinent post with which to insert this question. Finding a factor overwrites exponent status history. Since a lot of exponents are found with ECM, how can the bit level of exhaustive search on factored exponents be determined? e.g., Exponent n shows TF to 65 bits. An 85 bit facotr is reported. How can someone subsequently know that 66 to 84(!) has not been searched?

If James' site does not show the details you're looking for, then that information is probably lost.
From primenet, you will not even be able to tell anymore that your example has been searched up to 65 bits.

petrw1 · 2012-10-29, 23:39

http://www.mersenne.info/trial_facto..._7/2/20000000/

James Heinrich · 2012-10-29, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

http://www.mersenne.info/trial_facto..._7/2/20000000/

Is this unexpected? The DC wavefront seems to be in the low-32M range, so having no activity in 20-30M seems normal, no?

2012-10-29, 23:39	#1572
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 2·2,341 Posts	Hmmmmmm http://www.mersenne.info/trial_facto..._7/2/20000000/

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Status	Primeinator	Operation Billion Digits	5	2011-12-06 02:35
62 bit status	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	27	2008-09-29 13:52
OBD Status	Uncwilly	Operation Billion Digits	22	2005-10-25 14:05
1-2M LLR status	paulunderwood	3*2^n-1 Search	2	2005-03-13 17:03
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	25	2004-06-18 16:46

2012-10-27, 07:17	#1568
dbaugh Aug 2005 2·59 Posts	This seemed like the most recent reasonably pertinent post with which to insert this question. Finding a factor overwrites exponent status history. Since a lot of exponents are found with ECM, how can the bit level of exhaustive search on factored exponents be determined? e.g., Exponent n shows TF to 65 bits. An 85 bit facotr is reported. How can someone subsequently know that 66 to 84(!) has not been searched?

2012-10-27, 09:55	#1569
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 19·137 Posts	Why would we have to know that? It's proven composite and the proof is a factor.

2012-10-27, 10:21	#1570
dbaugh Aug 2005 2·59 Posts	The distribution of factors of various sizes is interesting, but I think the biggest reason is some sort of OCD.