RSA 1024 ridiculous

[Crest]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am 16.06.2007 um 17:05 schrieb Brian Smith:

> IF you have a life-long digital secret that you want to protect from
> people with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and you  
> insist on
> using RSA public key encryption to protect it during transit over the
> internet, then you need to use RSA 15,360 (not a typo) + AES 256 +  
> hope.
> But, I think RSA 3072 + AES 128 should be good enough to get you a
> waterboarding ticket; even RSA 1024 + 3DES would result in spyware  
> or a
> key logger on your client machine to prevent them from having to  
> fill up
> the bucket.

Does GnuPG support RSA keys longer than 4096 bits? I saw a modified  
old PGPi version doing so but ist took half a minute to sign a short  
message off less than one 1kb on a pentium1 based laptop...

Isn't it more usefull to switch to ECC instead of using that large keys?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
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=zKtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----