cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-11-09 - Re: Small keysizes do make sense (was PGP Comment weakens…)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Raph Levien <raph@cs.berkeley.edu>
Message Hash: aa18a3f91f385949cf7c6a26ec9cc4e6506800c59e1c518796ac7aa002b32b06
Message ID: <199511091951.OAA15564@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199511091725.JAA17620@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-09 20:32:17 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:32:17 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:32:17 +0800
To: Raph Levien <raph@cs.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Small keysizes do make sense (was PGP Comment weakens...)
In-Reply-To: <199511091725.JAA17620@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <199511091951.OAA15564@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Raph Levien writes:
> > On the other hand, it costs nothing by most people's standards to use
> > a 1024 bit key, so why not use one? I find that there is only a point
> > in using low security for anything in particular when there is a
> > perceivable cost to it -- if the cost is typing a different number
> > while doing key generation, I don't see why one should suffer the
> > tradeoff.
> 
> Perhaps it costs you "nothing," Perry, but not all of us have the
> massively parrallel 64-way interleaved banked memory nanosecond-latency
> box you have on your desk.

I've found that in practice the compression pass takes longer than the
RSA pass for PGP. If you accept the time for the file compression I
don't see how you can have trouble with the 1024 bit RSA operation.

Perry

Thread