best practices

[Faramir]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

El 14-12-2010 15:12, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> On 12/14/10 12:42 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>> They could be a result of using the old Cyber Knights Templar versions
>> of PGP that cropped up in the mid-'90s which allowed creating 16Kb keys.
> 
> What tool was used really doesn't interest me very much -- you can
> create them with GnuPG, too, if you're willing to tweak the source a
> little bit.  What I find morbidly fascinating is contemplating what kind
> of deranged individual would actually do this.  :)

  Well, somebody could think "if they made a 256 bits symmetric algo,
there should be a reason for that. And since if the asymmetric key is
broken, the message is decrypted, no matter how strong is the symmetric
algo, then it makes sense to use something equally strong".

  Now I think about it, AES-256 would be also an overkill, and the only
reason why we don't think it is a bad idea, is because we don't notice a
reduction in performance (with "normal usage") compared with AES-128.

  Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJNB/+jAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAg74H/RF9GLennMUSPZ79pEHcSuWz
zdIwDVbuXmZ3KXopADGlF6QMr9LX1jJjtWFoLSA7/BVXu/DfqX263uwixfMP+Xvz
FZL90hhzaU410Nt6xdgenRqORQnzRuyVKYmpj5psBNVeedsE+yY3tcRVIKNy9ePi
chdPrK/vwQ47Aq6+a8VBnCKhXlcFwo3rXQKgFgzy17fRuIhrbgu8Dany4TosWFwP
xNdo4Cdje6Na1RzKgkKiHORZzROzFV+OKQioy+yJPKEjYDmj566djNNWgU2Pu/ZZ
VbHEIR1kQX7P4idJv0BJmgfVUUMGlHJWgSj2k6IRy+w5pKRZuY7N8I5PUXr7JUI=
=FxHq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----