On Friday 31 October 2014 at 18:29:21, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I agree that the FAQ is a bad place to present a chain of arguments and
the wiki is the natural spot for it. My concern is that the FAQ and the
wiki need to be kept in sync somehow, and I'm not going to be watching
the wiki
Robert,
On Wednesday 29 October 2014 at 19:00:39, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Because this gets asked quite often, I've started to capture
some arguments of the debate how long RSAs could/should/can be
at http://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys
I thought we largely addressed this in the FAQ, sections
yes, I think that the recurring debate demands that the arguments
are made visible so they can be tested by readers.
The FAQ is discussed in public and changes are submitted to the
community for comment and review before I make any changes. So far, no
one on the list has raised a serious
Because this gets asked quite often, I've started to capture
some arguments of the debate how long RSAs could/should/can be
at http://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys
puts on his FAQ maintainer hat
I thought we largely addressed this in the FAQ, sections 11.1, 11.2,
11.3, 11.4 and 11.5.
Do we need
Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You couldn't
brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite covers it 8-)
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at
Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You
couldn't brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite
covers it 8-)
Sure you can. To brute-force a 128-bit RSA key would require you to
check every prime number between two and 10**19. There are in the
neighborhood of
On 10/29/2014 at 3:22 PM, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
Why is brute force even mentioned in something about RSA? You
couldn't brute-force a 128 bit RSA key. I'd say 2048 bit quite
covers it 8-)
-
Surely Peter knows this too ;-)
More likely 128 was a typo for the more
On 2014-10-29 21:49, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
Surely Peter knows this too ;-)
More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028
...
No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force.
For p = 2^63 to 2^64-1
For q = 2^63 to 2^64-1
If p * q == n:
Break
Next
More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028
...
Either-or. RSA-1024's dangerously close to being brute-forceable, too.
We've already brute-forced RSA-768 and we're closing in on RSA-890. I
haven't looked into how well the general number field sieve
parallelizes, but
No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force.
Technically, brute force is testing every *possible* value... not values
that you know aren't going to work. Why test those?
If you're trying to factorize 2701, for instance, you can feel free to
skip dividing by 2 (doesn't end in an even
On 2014-10-29 22:30, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Technically, brute force is testing every *possible* value... not
values
that you know aren't going to work. Why test those?
Well, why not restrict ourselves to primes whose product equal the
modulus? I could solve any key in constant time that
On Wednesday 29 October 2014 22:18:13 Peter Lebbing wrote:
On 2014-10-29 21:49, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
Surely Peter knows this too ;-)
More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028
...
No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force.
For p = 2^63 to
12 matches
Mail list logo
