3 ms·
It's roughly half as fast as 4096, which sounds bad until you realize that 3072 is already 20% as fast as 2048, 3% as fast as 1024, and 1% as fast as 512. In t
by jandrese 2y ago
It's roughly half as fast as 4096, which sounds bad until you realize that 3072 is already 20% as fast as 2048, 3% as fast as 1024, and 1% as fast as 512. In terms of performance tradeoff it's downright mild compared to the other steps up.
- throw0101c 2y agoIf I could waive a magic wand and get a 40-100% performance boost on a service by changing 3-4 characters (s/4096/3072/) why wouldn't I take it? (Assuming I need security go to beyond RSA 2028.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jrpelkonen 2y agoWell, in typical use cases RSA usage is very limited (eg some operations during TLS handshake), so the 40-100% boost wouldn’t be across the board, but likely shave some milliseconds per connection.
- bawolff 2y agoIts not a 40-100% performance boost overall, its just during one specific step that is a very small part of the entire overall system.