3 ms·
There are many other algorithms that are just as proven but don't feature many of the traps contained in RSA. The main issue with RSA is that depending on imple
by mattalex 6y ago
There are many other algorithms that are just as proven but don't feature many of the traps contained in RSA. The main issue with RSA is that depending on implementation and context-sensitive parameter selection (i.e. you actually have to think about them and can't just always use the same) you get wildly different results.
Other algorithms, like ECC, also have parameters, but they aren't context-sensitive, so always choosing the same one is fine for developers and only security researchers have to think of new and better parameters.
The Question really is how brittle do you expect/accept your encryption algorithm to be: RSA is very brittle in very unexpected ways, while e.g. ECC is only brittle if you choose a bad curve (but you can simply always select the same safe one) and people also know that.
- rini17 6y agoECC also depends on good RNG for computing signatures. RSA needs it only at key creation time.
- nmadden 6y agoThis is not necessarily true - deterministic EC signatures are now recommended, eg EdDSA or [1] for ECDSA. (To prevent some side-channel attacks you might want to reintroduce some randomness). On the other hand, it’s now recommended to use PSS padding with RSA, which requires a random value for each signature. [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979