On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange <ta...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Why not recommend a key size that will not be broken for the rest of > > your natural life? > > Thanks for all your feed back on the list. I have now summed up the > concerns raised on the list on > http://oletange.blogspot.dk/2013/09/life-long-key-size.html > > Feel free to let me know if you feel I have left out important > concerns.
I see you have checked the influence of large keys on the CPU time needed to do key operations on different hardware. But key operations with large keys not only cost lots of time (see your numbers on low end hardware), but also energy. The additional energy consumption might not be relevant ecologically, but I'm pretty sure it's relevant for the battery life of your and your communication partners' smart phones. In particular, if you and your communication partners use equally large keys and encrypt each and every email, SMS, chat message, etc. Obviously, those concerns might be irrelevant in pratice (e.g. because nobody uses encryption anyway). Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
