| 查看: 3170 | 回复: 13 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
jiujiunianli新虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
IEEE Access初审意见还有戏吗？已有12人参与
|
||
|
7月31日投IEEE Access，今天8月19日收到初审意见，4位评审都是Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)。 请问，重投录用的概率大吗？ 4个审稿人意见如下： Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: This paper presents a new idea of Integer Factorization based on Pisano period. I think the idea is interesting. However, the claim that this can be used for RSA cracking is rather superficial. As we know, RSA security is not provably equivalent to factoring, so to break RSA, in fact we do not really have to go through integer factorization. While this paper presents a new approach for integer factorization, the example provided is toy example. If the author provides with a large number of composite which can be somehow factorized with this method and not other means, then it would be more convincing. In the recent years, there have been many advances in the effort to break RSA algorithm. All of the new references are missing in the manusript. Please check some papers in the recent conferences. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes Is the paper technically sound?: Yes Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Can be improved Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: An abstract should start with a brief overview of the topic. A narration should be given without any numeration nor formula. A comma should not be located prior to an and. What is it? A pronounce should be limited to a special case of expression. There are many extra spaces throughout the paper. A symbol n has been used for several different variables. For instance, n should be reserved for the bit size of N only. The author should maintain a consistent notation such as N = PQ. … thereby transforming the NP problem into P problem. The authors have made an over claimed statement. No one has shown that IF on RSA is in fact an NPC problem. A superscript notation should be adhered to. There is missing power of n in the Theorem 4. What is an r? In Theorem 3, what is the power of s? When ?0 = 0, {??(??? ?)} is considered to be purely constrained periodic[10]. This statement is hanging. According to the definition of ?(?), ? ? ??(?)/2 is known, from (3) we can have that when 4|?(?), ? > 1 and ? = 2, when 2 ∥ ?(?), it is similar to (1) that … What is the meaning of || here? Theorem 5 shows that the Pisano period is ? times the constrained period, i.e. ?(?) = ??(?). An r can just be a factor of ?(?). There are more possible values of r than just 1, 2 and 4. Finding the period p is a difficult problem which this paper has trivially skipped. Pisano period is still protected by the strong criteria of prime numbers. The authors cannot claim that their method can performed better than Elliptic Curve method which overcomes the strong criteria of prime numbers. An efficient searching algorithm on Pisano period is valuable here. Step 2, solving the values of ?1 and ?2 by (11). What is (11)? There are three algorithms: recursive algorithm, loop algorithm, fast doubling algorithm[13], the time complexity of these three algorithms is O(??), ?(?), ?(??? ?). For a given bit size n, the textbook algorithm should start from O(n^3). In Algorithm 2: Fast Fibonacci Modulo Algorithm, it is misleading to use the symbol % when dealing with large integer arithmetic. The sample given right after Algorithm 3 is misleading. The problem size is smaller than (Q-P)/2 = 2. A basic factoring algorithm should be able to solve the problem in less than 2 attempts. A larger sample pair should be given such as P=677 and Q=991. An experiment on N=PQ beyond 256 bits would shed some light on the true performance of the proposed method among others. This paper has described an idea on RSA factoring via Pisano period. Nevertheless, the authors have not been able to show valuable insight on the efficiency of their proposed method. This paper does not present a new knowledge in RSA factoring. However, a credit can be given to those wrote about it first with small valuable contribution. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Integer Factorization and RSA Cracking Algorithm Based on Pisano Period This paper does not present a new knowledge in RSA factoring. However, a credit can be given to those wrote about it first with small valuable contribution. Is the paper technically sound?: This paper has described an idea on RSA factoring via Pisano period. Nevertheless, the authors have not been able to show valuable insight on the efficiency of their proposed method. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No, I am sorry to say the authors should spend more time in this topic. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes, they are Reviewer: 3 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: There are many works that claims to tackle famous problems, and most of them has been rejected by simple mistakes. But I felt a flavor of a seed of interesting works from the submitted paper. Factoring from the period finding or collision finding is a major strategy for attacking RSA using "quantum computers." So, I want to encourage the authors to resubmit by adding the discussion about quantum attacks on RSA, and modify the errors that I point out below. I suspect theorems about Fibonacci sequence and Pisano period proved in the paper are re-discoverings of some previous works, so, you can shrink your paper by referring them. * Due to the time limitation, I didn't check the proofs, but the following arguments are not clear to me: - Line 6 of proof of Theorem 2: how F_{ad(m)-1}*F_r=0 mod m implies m|F_r? It doesn't hold in general. - Corollaries b) d(m1)|d(m2) => m1|m2 is not trivial to me. - Line 3 of proof of Theorem 3: "Thus, F_{d(m)+k} ... 0\le k\le d(m)-1." doesn't make sense. * The submitted manuscript looks written by using MS word, I'm not sure if it is allowed by the journal's condition, but I think it is not good for reading in scientific area, so you should to use the TeX. * The discussion in Section IV.B is the collision finding via the birthday paradox, you should omit some explanation by following some textbooks. * The last of Section IV is the most mysterious argument to me. How do you justify N1=N^{1/6}? It is an essential matter for the complexity analysis. *Typos: p.1, right, l.44, "lg n" and "lg lg n", missing font. p.1, right, l.44, "thereby transforming the NP problem into P problem" this is not true. p.2, sentence of Th. 2 Fn'=e^n+~e is Fn'=e^n+(~e)^n p.3, l.22, Theorem 3 and 5 are typos of 2 and 3? Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes Is the paper technically sound?: Yes, but partially. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes, but it looks the MS word. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes Reviewer: 4 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: See Attached. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: If corrected, it has the potential to. Is the paper technically sound?: See the attached review. Mistakes in the exposition prevent the referee from determining this yet. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: It is not presented as such currently. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No. See the comments in the report. If you have any questions, please contact article administrator: 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
求博导
已经有10人回复
-
Nature一直在编辑手里，考虑好几天了，是悬了吗
已经有10人回复
-
博士白读了
已经有41人回复
-
一直找不到审稿人
已经有6人回复
-
聊天
已经有12人回复
-
with editor 两个月了，什么原因？
已经有7人回复
-
研二光催化6月底四篇二区什么水平
已经有11人回复
-
某种做法不行。说过几遍了。同学还那样做。再那样做就给低分
已经有3人回复
-
两类问题算是白选了~
已经有11人回复
-
基金开始函评了吗？
已经有8人回复
cngemy
至尊木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 11 (小学生)
- 金币: 17316.1
- 散金: 285
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1684
- 在线: 317.3小时
- 虫号: 2170715
- 注册: 2012-12-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机器人学及机器人技术
4楼2019-08-19 20:59:26
5