-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Am 16.06.2007 um 17:05 schrieb Brian Smith:
> IF you have a life-long digital secret that you want to protect from > people with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and you > insist on > using RSA public key encryption to protect it during transit over the > internet, then you need to use RSA 15,360 (not a typo) + AES 256 + > hope. > But, I think RSA 3072 + AES 128 should be good enough to get you a > waterboarding ticket; even RSA 1024 + 3DES would result in spyware > or a > key logger on your client machine to prevent them from having to > fill up > the bucket. Does GnuPG support RSA keys longer than 4096 bits? I saw a modified old PGPi version doing so but ist took half a minute to sign a short message off less than one 1kb on a pentium1 based laptop... Isn't it more usefull to switch to ECC instead of using that large keys? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBRnT7e/950yjRhRAFAQptHQ//Whn2WqiGe+eMHlGVU153dsET9G/Jb/fb RMG6y8k0IL+N3xMHwJ3/QbSYEhXFcR+F7Nlw7c959ooMuX9w3lRmRffiv4LcCHdb B0lOkdjCsNo5NSuO0F4jwB3jnEltFWk0Ju2NBB9dwnr/83QOjjZctBqbDwiygNr/ tyNaWw54OV1YcwGSCIeTBYEr5FZO/O3ul5g3UxDS7LBkVlT3k2AxQkXeMBscEF8G CxlQ26EWZfnf3mcUC6clGDUfwpakP7sUKIQm4iZTkk1TuTw85lVuklUzvJTz6Cu8 CxkS3zh18/PdBIeSAvURcQD5OALeIKAi4vL5CPFlPRx13jXuep+pyLeDVAMkjM8O htNZhxZ1/eI/Kcrusv/rhXqnwnw9JhjPBmUQf3u2/2Wp5wJ4V0REntzkjxNEaxk8 h9zjZbbYS46eqtpShlst5emaRfgwdsPIm7ux+2YpHqnlIELrmgrVdsuXxal5mBmg ImKLR8TgUb5gp7/fCWiii6cZsoN5Eb5CROFxvgOcdscU++HmH36VnMUXObde6fpr 2cz3viFuUPi9Fbg5zOdoCosCrEs2GYyxVb19HPEu4B/qQN/xw+0FVFawsyl6brDZ 1WdO3DX/a0+vqBhBrrKqdkXSZPi5WxoJjsJIyXI724W7gsaAoCH33NwtdO6ahtRO HOQovbEoWjw= =zKtG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
