Hi,
On 22.12.2005 17:06 Uhr, Atom Smasher wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
>
>> That's true. Even considering a brute force attack, 1025 bits is in
>> average only sqrt(2) better as 1024 bits.
> ===
>
> so, does that mean that a 2048 bit asymmetric key is (onl
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
That's true. Even considering a brute force attack, 1025 bits is in
average only sqrt(2) better as 1024 bits.
===
so, does that mean that a 2048 bit asymmetric key is (only) this many
times stronger than a 1024 bit key(?):
13407807
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:12:03 -0600
>From: Aleksandar Milivojevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Create key's over 4096 bit
> It takes
>somewhere around 13-14 minutes to generate 16k RSA key on 2.8GHz
>Pentium
>D. On slower machine, it can take hours to generate 16k RSA
Well, I don't think the difficulty of breaking a asymmetrical key
doubles per bit like it does for symmetical keys.
>From wikipedia:
"As of 2003 RSA Security claims that 1024-bit RSA keys are equivalent
in strength to 80-bit symmetric keys, 2048-bit RSA keys to 112-bit
symmetric keys and 3072-bit
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:36:20 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer said:
> - And even from a cryptographic point of view this wouldn't make sense
> (as far as I know), as currently hashfunctions are the weak point of the
> whole system.
The actual weak point is the missing bugfreeness of the
implemen
Johan Wevers wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
- And even from a cryptographic point of view this wouldn't make sense
(as far as I know), as currently hashfunctions are the weak point of the
whole system.
That depends on what you consider important. Hash functions are only used
Ludwig wrote:
>> for encryption, currently the 256 bit algo's are the strongest.
>Please don't mix symmetrical encryption strength (I suppose you are
>referring to the session key length/encryption algo) with asymmetrical
>encryption strength.
>
>A chain is only as strong as its weakest element.
On 22.12.2005 11:37 Uhr, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Atom Smasher wrote:
>
>> a 1025 bit key (if there was such a thing) would be [merely] twice as
>> strong as a 1024 bit key. a 1028 bit key would be 16 times stronger.
>
> That is true for symmetric encryption, but not for the algorithms used
> for p
Atom Smasher wrote:
>a 1025 bit key (if there was such a thing) would be [merely] twice as
>strong as a 1024 bit key. a 1028 bit key would be 16 times stronger.
That is true for symmetric encryption, but not for the algorithms used
for public key encryption since the attacs on RSA and ElGamal ar
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>- And even from a cryptographic point of view this wouldn't make sense
>(as far as I know), as currently hashfunctions are the weak point of the
>whole system.
That depends on what you consider important. Hash functions are only used
for signing; for encryption,
10 matches
Mail list logo
