I didnt respond with a serious answer because its a rather silly question (perhaps not as silly as how MS is going to destroy the universe) But, since you seem interested, I will give you my opinion. RH is not a method of factoring primes which would be much worse for crytptography, it is actually more just a description of approximate distribution of primes as we approach infinity. It is not exact and rather merely states a pattern which has already been seen for years, which is actually used in encryption to generate the primes used (you have to have someway to generate huge primes without waiting years) . Reimann stated his hypothesis in 1859 and for all zeros computed against his hypothesis since, there have not been any that did NOT appear to correlate his hypothesis. In fact it is generally accepted by mathematiicians to be true,an many algorithms for factoring (and generating) primes, already behave as though it were. So while as a mathematical point of interest its probably as cool if not cooler than a proof for Fermats last theorem, its not going to bring the internet down or cryptography, to me its more akin to proving the sky is blue. Whether or not crytography can continue to rely on our inability to factor primes quickly remains to be seen, but crytptographers know, and have always known, what can be done with math can be undone with math as well, the idea is just to make it take too much time hence the term "computationally secure", not actually secure. Cryptography is always in a race to stay ahead of our abiltity to compute faster and faster. This is the failing that catch refers to, in that no method or algorithm can be secure, if a a complete analysis keyspace can be completed in a short amount of time, and thats why new methods are being developed that do not have this weakness, but be assured, they will bring a new set of weaknesses and problems to the table, and the race will continue.


-Maestr0