But the thing is that it isn't. RSA is much harder to make secure that even simply ECC. It is systemically hard to make time it timing safe, more or less any m

But the thing is that it isn't. RSA is much harder to make secure that even simply ECC. It is systemically hard to make time it timing safe, more or less any mistake I padding completely compromises it. More or less every single operation involved in computing RSA exchanges is susceptible to timing attacks. Then as the article says, it's very easy to choose "bad" keys. Bad keys are ones that aren't prime (I mean duh, but primality testing is probabilistic and has been found to go wrong before). At a theoretically level RSA and ECC are essentially equivalent (in the sense that the maths is based on the same core problem), but the details of how it's approached is really important. Then when get to basic practicality. ECC keys are much much smaller than RSA for the same level of security - 256 bits vs. 4-8k - and while RSA is faster than ECC, the advantage is severely impacted by key size, so secure rsa keys will be slower the equivalent ECC in not too long. That's before considering the network traffic cost and latency for key exchange and certificate validation. The only advantage RSA has over ECC at this point is that it is conceptually easier to understand - the mathematics are all basic primary/grade school arithmetic on simple whole numbers.