Jon Callas wrote: > Well, the reason it's DSA is that the size of a DSA signature is > proportional to the size of the hash function rather than the > key. At the time John Kelsey did the first protocol, we were talking > about DSA with SHA-1. Now, of course, there are more options. > > Nonetheless, if you're going to do syslog-sign over udp, there's a > real need to keep the signatures small.
Based on quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, it seems the difference between RSA and DSA isn't that big. With DSA and SHA-1, you could put ~65 hashes in a Signature Block (while keeping it under 2048 bytes); with RSA (1024-bit key) and SHA-1, you could put ~60. Or in other words: the hash block is much larger than the signature. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
