A 2026 report claims that RSA-260, a 260-digit (862-bit) semiprime from RSA Laboratories’ 1991 Factoring Challenge, has been factored, surpassing the previous listed general-purpose record of RSA-250 from 2020. Such records help calibrate the practical cost of classical integer factoring, though they do not directly threaten modern 2048-bit RSA. The supplied evidence is conflicting and does not firmly verify attribution: the case names PenLume, a Scientific American snippet credits “Lu” at Cognition, and an integer-factoring record page still lists RSA-250 as the largest result.
The claimed record marginally updates the empirical cost boundary underlying Scott’s Cryptographic Trust work, but the supplied grounding says it does not threaten modern 2048-bit RSA or imply a change to his agent-security architectures. Its disputed attribution also touches his requirement for independently checkable evidence, though this is only an example of that pattern rather than a consequential extension or challenge.
ip:concept.cryptographic-trustip:concept.mechanically-different-verifiers
queries asked of Scott's wikis
- classical factoring cost and cryptographic key-size assumptions
- post-quantum migration for agent infrastructure
- code signing and credential security for autonomous agents
- cryptographic agility in AI systems and developer tooling
- verifying extraordinary technical claims and reproducible benchmarks
2026-09-08T12:32:17Z
The case has faded into repeated discussion without new verification, resource measurements, or an expected confirmation milestone; retire it from active monitoring without treating the claim as disproved. Checkable factors could reopen the record claim, while documented computational costs would be needed to support revised factoring-cost estimates.
2026-09-06T12:22:05Z
The refreshed discussion supplies no new verification or computational-cost evidence, so the claimed record remains open without establishing revised classical factoring-cost estimates. Further comment-only refreshes do not warrant frequent review; checkable factors or documented methodology would materially change the assessment.
2026-09-05T11:29:02Z
The refreshed comments remain amplification and speculation, not new verification of the claimed factorization or evidence of its computational cost. The claim stays open, but this delta does not change Scott’s security decisions or justify frequent review.
2026-09-05T09:25:14Z
The refreshed discussion is repetitive amplification, with no new evidence establishing the factorization or its computational cost. The record claim remains open, but neither a revised classical factoring-cost estimate nor any implication for Scott’s security decisions is supported by this delta.
2026-09-05T08:26:27Z
The discussion refresh adds no substantive verification or cost evidence, leaving the claimed record open rather than disproved. Checkable factors would establish the result; methodology and measured resources would separately establish whether it changes classical factoring-cost estimates.
2026-09-05T07:24:43Z
The refreshed discussion adds no independent verification or measured resource costs; linked coverage and Wikipedia propagation do not establish those facts in the supplied evidence. The record claim remains open, but this delta changes neither its implications for Scott nor the case for slower review.
2026-09-05T05:23:53Z
The comment refresh is repetitive amplification, not new verification: the supplied evidence still offers neither checkable factors nor measured computational costs. Keep the record claim open but move to a slower review cadence; it has not earned new implications for Scott’s security decisions.
2026-09-05T03:23:31Z
The refreshed comments add no substantive evidence beyond the already-known claim and requests for methodology. Even a verified factorization would not establish a new cost benchmark without resource measurements; no supplied delta changes Scott’s security decisions.
2026-09-05T02:22:58Z
The refreshed discussion remains amplification and requests for methodology, not independent confirmation of the factorization. Without checkable factors or resource measurements, the claim neither establishes a new factoring-cost benchmark nor changes Scott’s security decisions.
2026-09-05T01:25:55Z
The reported Wikipedia inclusion indicates propagation, not independent verification; the supplied discussion still lacks checkable factors or computation details. Nothing new changes the claim’s limited implications for Scott’s cryptographic decisions.
2026-09-04T23:31:46Z
The refreshed discussion adds questions and historical context but no independent verification, methodology, or attribution; the claimed record remains an interesting but uncorroborated result.
2026-09-04T23:26:56Z
grounded: novel/low — The claimed record marginally updates the empirical cost boundary underlying Scott’s Cryptographic Trust work, but the supplied grounding says it does not threa
2026-09-04T23:23:24Z
case created — A bounded record-scale factorization claim is technically consequential and directly relevant to classical cryptographic security planning.