Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RSA Factoring Challenge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Archive page created with older discussions from before 2010[edit]

Following the manual process on H:ARC, I created a new archive page for this Talk page and moved all the older discussions from before 2010, as well as an external links modified section from 2017. - Dyork (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - should RSA-129 be removed from the table?[edit]

Question for other editors - should the entry for RSA-129 be removed from the table? As the note on the entry indicates: "RSA-129 was not part of the RSA Factoring Challenge, but was related to a column by Martin Gardner in Scientific American". If it had nothing to do with the "RSA Factoring Challenge", why are we including it.. other than to have it in a list of RSA numbers that have been factored?

I note that RSA-129 is included in the RSA numbers article, which I think is fine. But I don't think it should be here in THIS article as it was not actually part of the "challenge".

My recommendation would be to delete the entry for RSA-129. Comments from any other editors? - Dyork (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]