3 ms·
Not anywhere near big enough to be cryptographically secure. RSA uses 2 numbers as the public key, e and n. n should be more than 1024 bits, and it really doesn
by 30thElement 15y ago
Not anywhere near big enough to be cryptographically secure. RSA uses 2 numbers as the public key, e and n. n should be more than 1024 bits, and it really doesn't matter how big e is. The default for e for a while (and cryptographically secure in theory) was 3 because computing y=x^3 mod n (aka RSA encryption) was cheap. What matters in RSA though is n being large and hard to factor, not in e being large.
EDIT: my bad, I misread the "2^16+1 bits" as 2^16+1 every time I read it.
- delinka 15y agoWhile you are correct, it looks to me like tedunangst thought the numbers should have a bit length of 65,537 bits. That frakken huge. And not at all what this article says. He said "2^16+1 bits would be a very big number." That's 65,537 bits.
- tedunangst 15y agoActually, I'm saying it is not the bit length. But that seems to be the interpretation of the original comment.
- tedunangst 15y ago2^16 is significantly larger than 1024.