3 ms·
> He didn't compare anything. No, he did: >>> 1024 bit keys are endangered? .... You can't even break 256 bits 1024 bit key = most likely something like RSA
by gherkin0 11y ago
> He didn't compare anything.
No, he did:
>>> 1024 bit keys are endangered? .... You can't even break 256 bits
1024 bit key = most likely something like RSA
256 bit key = some symmetric algorithm or ECC
He's implying a 1024 bit RSA key should be safe because a 256 bit key from some other algorithm is.
- baldfat 11y ago> Only in some broken encryption schemes RSA 1024 is a broken encryption scheme (2010). In Jan 2010 there was already the concern it was broken or quickly to be broken. http://arstechnica.com/security/2010/01/768-bit-rsa-cracked-1024-bit-safe-for-now/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2010/01/768-bit-rsa-cracked-... in March 2010 http://www.techworld.com/news/security/rsa-1024-bit-private-key-encryption-cracked-3214360/ http://www.techworld.com/news/security/rsa-1024-bit-private-...
- gherkin0 11y agoI mentioned your first link, the factoring of a 768-bit RSA key, in my first comment. RSA isn't a "broken encryption scheme": it's a perfectly fine one. It's just that you need to use key lengths long enough to defend against the computing power available to current and expected adversaries. That paper is just a demonstration of modern computing power, which just shows that you should use longer keys. I took his statement of "Only in some broken encryption schemes" to be a misunderstood reference to stuff like this: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/how-the-nsa-can-break-trillions-of-encrypted-web-and-vpn-connections/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/how-the-nsa-can-brea... or a side channel attack. Your second link has garbage sensationalized headline. It actually describes a side channel attack that has nothing to do with cryptography algorithms. It's basically equivalent to a clever way of looking over someone's shoulder.