RSA 1024 ridiculous

[Atom Smasher]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, 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.
=====================

regardless of the size of the message... if it's being signed/verified 
then you're signing/verifying a hash. if it's being de/encrypted you're 
de/encrypting a session key.

for all practical purposes the overhead of using larger keys and hashes 
doesn't get worse with larger messages.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Your password must be at least 18770 characters and
 	 cannot repeat any of your previous 30689 passwords.
 	 Please type a different password. Type a password
 	 that meets these requirements in both text boxes."
 		-- Microsoft takes security seriously in
 		Knowledge Base Article Q276304.