RSA 1024 ridiculous

[Andrew Berg]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
 
Robert Hübener wrote:
> Andrew Berg wrote:
>> Try signing/encrypting files that are tens, hundreds, or
>> thousands of megabytes in size. Sure, your average machine can
>> sign/encrypt messages that don't even fill a cluster without
>> breaking a sweat, but if the sensitive data is large, RSA-4096
>> isn't a good choice unless a gov't agency wants that data.
> The work for the RSA-part of the algorithm is always the same: It
> only has to process either the hash of the message/file or the key
> for the symmetric cipher.
I don't completely understand. Does this mean that
encryption/signature time is only dependent on the hash, and that RSA
key size doesn't matter in this regard?

- --
Windows NT 5.1.2600.2180 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 | Enigmail 0.95.1 | GPG
1.4.7
Key ID: 0x60A78FCB - available on major keyservers and upon request
Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 
iQEVAwUBRnV7YfiOA0Bgp4/LAQOH2gf+POMCNDoSeQeGYuct0RTMPCaV2ByvB0wB
2uXCpGPqlA71pgd+wQ+UC/yEE0f+8v3j3lv7PBfM4e3q3HJhcsAAZJe6lcCYGX1Z
duF9yRfZdrn2TcCIL6URdMds788HWUyGurazzun+kJzUfEkd3hE0BPWyvzyBKV82
7c+ti7v2cPAVhcRx2ZDQ50ttVpbWNuIFzRWevS94ns6YQ/HOk9YW2ZB/wowEtOXk
nxivQqWgCEO0meRjPiw4uhS2TNdP5tnKrr0Yh6kXOf2t27L6PNU2JN8tRIA9DByH
muy6q5ZQcoF0P0uN/tvE2hZfD4tkXu6cvkZW/G60GEuWYSpdL51uAA==
=u+hz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----