If an attacker creating a special-purpose machine to break your keys is a realistic scenario, why are you even considering keys of that size?
Best regards, Samuel Neves On 15-08-2010 04:25, John Gilmore wrote: >>> ... 2048-bit keys performing >>> at 1/9th of 1024-bit. My own internal benchmarks have been closer to >>> 1/7th to 1/8th. Either way, that's back in line with the above stated >>> 90-95% overhead. Meaning, in Dan's words "2048 ain't happening." > Can I abuse a phrase and call this "binary thinking"? > > There is no reason that the next step after 1024 bits has to be 2048 bits. > How about 1032 bits? Or 1040? Or 1104? > How about 1200 bits? How about 1536? How about 1600? 1808? > > I have a theory that if everyone picked a pseudo-random key size above > 1024 and below 2048, rather than standardizing on Yet Another Fixed > Keysize, we'd avoid making a powerful incentive for bad guys to build > a key-cracker optimized for one size. Which incentive we have > currently created at 1024 bits. It's the Microsoft Windows of key > sizes -- the target that gets you 90+% of the market. So pick a > larger size than 1024 that your server load can live with, even if it > isn't 2048. And don't tell anybody else what size you picked :-). > > John > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Cryptography Mailing List > Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majord...@metzdowd.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majord...@metzdowd.com
