Re: Bruce Momjian 2015-04-01 <20150401160907.gj4...@momjian.us> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I haven't seen a specific number, it might depend on exactly which cipher is > > negotiated. See for example http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/ > > What-is-the-reason-for-error-quot-SSL-negotiation-failed-error-04075070-rsa-routines-RSA-sign-digest-td43953.html > > > > All references I have foud say at least 2014 is safe and 512 is broken, but > > there are points in betwee nthat apparently works in some cases only. > > > > I think if we say "use 1024 bits or more" we err on the safe side. > > Did we ever decide on this?
The question seems to be if we want to recommend "1024 or more" or something more sophisticated like "use something between 512 and 1024 but ymmv .... 1024 should work in any case". Given that more bits should be more secure, and 1024 shouldn't pose a performance problem for anyone, going for the short version shouldn't do any harm. Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
