On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> There are several problems with overlong encryption keys, to name just
> two:
>
> - If you use an 8k encryption key you should also use an 8k primary
>certification key because that is the key which is used to keep the
>parts of an
I am really happy that no one so far shown any problems in the part on
using 10kbit keys today (only the justification for using 10kbit keys
seems to be controversial). I have therefore extracted the
non-controversial part as a separate document:
http://oletange.blogspot.dk/2013/09/problems-using-
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 5:35 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
>> Feel free to let me know if you feel I have left out important concerns.
:
> You're projecting 87 years into the future. Why should we have any
> confidence in your analysis?
T
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
:
>> http://oletange.blogspot.dk/2013/09/life-long-key-size.html
:
> but I'm pretty sure it's releva
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange 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-lo
The FAQ http://www.gnupg.org/faq/GnuPG-FAQ.html#what-is-the-recommended-key-size
recommends a key size of 1024 bits.
Reading http://www.keylength.com/en/4/ I am puzzled why GnuPG recommends that.
Why not recommend a key size that will not be broken for the rest of
your natural life? (Assuming the
