4 ms·
Noob here. Could this work as a benchmark and tell us how safe RSA-1024, RSA-2048, RSA-16384 etc. are? BTW, why shouldn't everyone switch to RSA-16384? Accordi
by KCUOJJQJ 7y ago
Noob here. Could this work as a benchmark and tell us how safe RSA-1024, RSA-2048, RSA-16384 etc. are?
BTW, why shouldn't everyone switch to RSA-16384? According to https://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys https://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys "elder versions supported creating of keys up to 16 KiB." When it was possible to create 16384 long keys, it must still be possible to use them with new versions of GnuPG, right? And https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ tells me that 16384 bits are way better than 4096 bits. According to "Lenstra Updated" your data is protected until the year 2153 with 16384 bit keys and until the year 2060 with 4096 bit keys.
- dippersauce 7y agoI would think a primary reason for that is performance. A key that large would require a lot of entropy for initial generation, a large(r) amount of memory, as well as making encryption much more computationally expensive. I'd also be worried that with such large keys there might be greater potential for side-channel attacks.
- rakoo 7y agoIt's also much more complicated in practice to exchange huge key files than the 32 byte string that an EC key is