1997-06-25 - Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II
Header Data
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: a427350d857d1fe0e1bbb0ce44eb744855d311dfd892156566c0e78a317a9d99
Message ID: <199706250645.IAA16548@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-25 06:52:01 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:52:01 +0800
Raw message
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:52:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II
Message-ID: <199706250645.IAA16548@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>I can assure you
>that in moving from a 1024 bit key to a 4096 bit key, the attackers
>job is well in excess of 50x harder. Greatly in excess of a trillion
>trillion times harder.
First part true, second part false. See Schneier, p.160. Extrapolating
using GNFS factoring indicates ratio of 1E21. If SNFS factoring becomes
possible it is much worse, ratio less than one million.
Thread
Return to June 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
Return to “nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)”
- 1997-06-25 (Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:52:01 +0800) - Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II - nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
- 1997-06-26 (Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:03:05 +0800) - Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>