Naïve RSA decryption in PythonIs my Encryption Module Secure?Encoding and decoding small strings of textC# AES + RSA Encryption ImplementationEncryption in C#My images have secrets A.K.A. the making of aesthetic passwords V.2ISO mode encryption/decryption with BouncyCastleEncryption/decryption by matrix multiplication in CC++ RSA ImplementationGenerate two random primes and find their totientPython RSA/DSA File Cryptography, Key Generation, Key Protection

C++ lambda syntax

Friend wants my recommendation but I don't want to give it to him

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached the tenth of the Sun power?

Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions

Do people actually use the word "kaputt" in conversation?

Is this saw blade faulty?

Mac Mini (2018) 10Gb Port Compatibility

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?

Magnifying glass in hyperbolic space

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

Error in master's thesis, I do not know what to do

How to preserve electronics (computers, ipads, phones) for hundreds of years?

Extract substring according to regexp with sed or grep

Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?

How do I lift the insulation blower into the attic?

I keep switching characters, how do I stop?

Checking @@ROWCOUNT failing

Started in 1987 vs. Starting in 1987

Put the phone down / Put down the phone

Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?

Reason why a kingside attack is not justified

Capacitor electron flow

Reasons for having MCU pin-states default to pull-up/down out of reset



Naïve RSA decryption in Python


Is my Encryption Module Secure?Encoding and decoding small strings of textC# AES + RSA Encryption ImplementationEncryption in C#My images have secrets A.K.A. the making of aesthetic passwords V.2ISO mode encryption/decryption with BouncyCastleEncryption/decryption by matrix multiplication in CC++ RSA ImplementationGenerate two random primes and find their totientPython RSA/DSA File Cryptography, Key Generation, Key Protection













3












$begingroup$


I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?



def decrypt(kenc,d,n): 
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec









share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
    $endgroup$
    – Konrad Rudolph
    15 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?



def decrypt(kenc,d,n): 
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec









share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
    $endgroup$
    – Konrad Rudolph
    15 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?



def decrypt(kenc,d,n): 
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec









share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am making a code with basic RSA encryption/decryption. My professor wants me to speed up this function but it is already so simple and I am lost. Any ideas?



def decrypt(kenc,d,n): 
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec






python performance homework cryptography






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago









200_success

130k17154419




130k17154419










asked yesterday









Chad TChad T

311




311







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
    $endgroup$
    – Konrad Rudolph
    15 hours ago













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
    $endgroup$
    – Konrad Rudolph
    15 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
15 hours ago





$begingroup$
You can trivially make the code simpler/shorter and also (minimally) more efficient by removing the unnecessary variable assignment. But of course this isn’t what your professor meant.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
15 hours ago











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.



There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.



kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):



import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random

random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)

def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec

(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))


This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.



There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)



So decrypt can be written as:



def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)


With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.



Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Smith
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
    $endgroup$
    – SEJPM
    4 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215712%2fna%25c3%25afve-rsa-decryption-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









11












$begingroup$

Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.



There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.



kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):



import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random

random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)

def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec

(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))


This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.



There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)



So decrypt can be written as:



def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)


With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.



Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Smith
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
    $endgroup$
    – SEJPM
    4 hours ago















11












$begingroup$

Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.



There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.



kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):



import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random

random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)

def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec

(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))


This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.



There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)



So decrypt can be written as:



def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)


With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.



Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Smith
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
    $endgroup$
    – SEJPM
    4 hours ago













11












11








11





$begingroup$

Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.



There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.



kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):



import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random

random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)

def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec

(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))


This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.



There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)



So decrypt can be written as:



def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)


With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.



Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Simple does not mean fast, so you cannot judge performance based on how simple the implementation looks. Usually the most efficient way to perform a non-trivial task is not also the simplest way to do it. In this case though, there is a much more efficient solution that is about equally simple, and is probably sufficient.



There is a serious problem with this implementation: it computes kenc**d.



kenc**d is in general a very big number that takes a long time to compute, and then it takes a long time again to reduce it modulo n. For example, trying it out with 1024bit RSA (the lowest setting!):



import Crypto
from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA
from Crypto import Random

random_generator = Random.new().read
key = RSA.generate(1024, random_generator)

def decrypt(kenc,d,n):
kdec=(kenc**d)%n
return kdec

(ciphertext,) = key.encrypt(42, 0)
print(decrypt(ciphertext, key.d, key.n))


This does not finish in a reasonable time. Estimating the size of kenc**d, it is expected to be up to (and usually close to) 1024*1024 = 1048576 bits (both kenc and d are 1024 bit numbers), that will certainly fit on a computer these days, but that's still a very big number and calculations on such large numbers take a lot of time, especially multiplication and remainder.



There is a simple remedy: use modular exponentiation, which keeps the size of the numbers that it is working with low throughout the whole calculation by reducing modulo n as it goes along. You could implement it yourself, but Python handily provides a built-in function for this: pow(x, e, n)



So decrypt can be written as:



def decrypt(kenc, d, n):
return pow(kenc, d, n)


With that change, the code above decodes the message quickly.



Further improvements are possible, but more complicated, and won't be drop-in replacements.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 22 hours ago









haroldharold

1,39868




1,39868







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Smith
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
    $endgroup$
    – SEJPM
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Smith
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
    $endgroup$
    – SEJPM
    4 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
And of course, it's even faster not to have decrypt at all when all it does is call pow.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
14 hours ago












$begingroup$
Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
$endgroup$
– Oscar Smith
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Keeping decrypt would be a good idea. If you were actually implementing RSA, you would also want PKCS or something there, and the performance penalty of a func call will be small compared to the time to call pow.
$endgroup$
– Oscar Smith
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
$endgroup$
– SEJPM
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Also note that pow probably doesn't exhibit timing independent of base and exponent ("constant-time") allowing for timing side-channel attacks which one may want / need to defend against.
$endgroup$
– SEJPM
4 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215712%2fna%25c3%25afve-rsa-decryption-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB