4 ms·
It doesn't really even affect 1024 bit keys as even the largest RSA keys factored (this one is close but isn't) are quite a bit far away from 1024 (remember fac
by jd007 13y ago
It doesn't really even affect 1024 bit keys as even the largest RSA keys factored (this one is close but isn't) are quite a bit far away from 1024 (remember factoring difficulty scales exponentially with number of bits, not linearly). But 2048 bit keys are recommended I believe.
- kingkilr 13y agoFor new keys, 4096 is preferred.
- tptacek 13y agoI don't think it's that simple. A 4096 bit key is extremely unlikely to get you fewer bits of security than a 2048 bit key. But the thing that makes 2048 bit keys a realistic threat is likely to make the "preference" be for something other than RSA entirely.
- sdevlin 13y agoIf 2048-bit RSA is vulnerable, then RSA is probably toast.
- makomk 13y agoI know some of the CAs are using 4096-bit keys for their long term signing keys, but those are going to be in use for over a decade and are a major target. Everyone else seems to use 2048-bit.
- trebor 13y agoI know that being able to factor ~670/1024-bits isn't that impressive (overall). But the fact that it is possible to develop the software this far shows that it's mainly a hardware problem. Enough parallelization into GPU cores with a significant system, and I think that cracking a 1024-bit key comes to less than a week.