Long Key Performance
anonymous at anonymizer.com
Sat Apr 20 20:40:01 CEST 2002
Werner Koch wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:06:36 +0800, Enzo Michelangeli said:
>> Well, you may be right, but why not let the users make their own decision?
>> Anonymous appears to have a point.
>He can do so up to a certain size. Going over this needs changes to
>the RNG mdoule.
Okay, so there is some reason, sort of, not to do this.
>It is better to think about an entire system and not just about one
>detail (length of the key).
Details are important, at least in aggregate.
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:08 -0700, Anonymous said:
>> You seem to be arguing that because you personally don't want to buy
>> faster hardware, everybody else on the planet should not be permitted
>> to use key lengths of their choosing.
>No. It is free software.
Valid point. It is correct to say that you are not lobbying the
governments of the world to restrict public key cryptography to
keylengths of under 2048 bits.
>> Note that the attack you are positing doesn't have the same properties
>> as a factoring attack.
>There is no known way of factoring even a 1024 key. And emails are
>usally not a target to mount factoring attack on a personal key - if
>you are capabale of doing so, you would start with widley used CA
>keys or keys on backing cards...
> ...You seem to be claiming you know exactly how hard it is to
> factor. The fact is, however, that you don't. Given that this is a
>But I know that there are hundreds of far easier ways to achieve a
>goal. Why breaking the front door when you can easily walk in
>through the unlocked back door.
You are not addressing the points raised.
More information about the Gnupg-devel