On 2010-07-11 10:11 AM, Brandon Enright wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Jonathan
> Thornburg wrote:
>
>> The following usenet posting from 1993 provides an
>> interesting bit (no pun itended) of history on RSA key
>> sizes. The key passage is the last paragraph, asserting
>> tha
On 11-07-2010 01:11, Brandon Enright wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
> Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
>
>> The following usenet posting from 1993 provides an interesting bit
>> (no pun itended) of history on RSA key sizes. The key passage is the
>> last paragraph, asserting that 1024
Dan:
You didn't mention the option of switching to elliptic curves. A
256-bit elliptic curve is probably stronger than 2048-bit RSA [1]
while also being more efficient in every way except for CPU cost for
verifying signatures or encrypting [2].
I like the Brainpool curves which comes with a bette
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
> The following usenet posting from 1993 provides an interesting bit
> (no pun itended) of history on RSA key sizes. The key passage is the
> last paragraph, asserting that 1024-bit keys should be ok (safe from
> key-factoring att
