RSA Weak?
Sven Radde
email at sven-radde.de
Fri Nov 2 21:06:46 CET 2007
Hi!
Alexander W. Janssen schrieb:
> How do you come to that figure? A keyspace of 1024 is the double
> amount of 1023 bit, so I'm curious how you come to that figures.
While this is true for symmetric ciphers, there are far more efficient
attack methods on asymmetric ciphers (factoring - instead of brute-forcing).
> It's one thing to brute-force 256-bit RSA in, let's say, a couple of
> months, but a totally different to break 1024 bits.
The current public record is a 663-bit RSA-key ("RSA-200" as it has 200
digits) AFAIK:
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2879
More recent is the factorization of a 640-bit RSA-key:
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2964
As mentioned above, the difficulty does not scale exponentially: The
663-bit number took 55 CPU-years on a 2,2GHz Opteron, the 640-bit number
30 CPU-years. The actual computations were apparrently carried out by a
cluster with 80 machines.
In fact, some mathematician has proven that factoring is a polynomial
problem, IIRC.
cu, Sven
More information about the Gnupg-users
mailing list