how slow are 4Kbit RSA keys? [was: Re: multiple keys vs multiple identities]
Dave.Smith at st.com
Mon Sep 27 18:09:28 CEST 2010
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> David Smith wrote:
>> Not truly "quantitative", but I notice a significant difference
>> between encrypting emails to people with 1024-bit keys vs people with
>> 4096-bit keys. I'd say that the difference is in the order 3-6
>> I'm running GnuPG 1.4.x on a Sun Ultra10 with a 500 MHz CPU and 1 GB
>> RAM. Yes, I know it's old. :-)
>> We're forced to use 4096-bit keys because some of our customers
>> require it.
> Am I missing something?
> I thought the keys were used to encrypt the block containing the session
> key (that is, IIRC, 512 bits). And it is the session key that is used to
> encrypt and decrypt the actual message. Since the session key is small,
> encrypting or decrypting it should not take a lot of time compared with
> doing an entire message (depends on its length, of course).
Yes, that's partially true, although I thought that the symmetric cipher
is usually a 256-bit key (often AES-256).
> So unless the time to encrypt or decrypt the session key is large
> compared with the time to encrypt or decrypt the actual message, is this
> discussion not about the wrong thing? What is the message size of the
> messages being used to come up with the numbers on this thread? Are they
> realistically large (whatever that might be)?
I was talking about small emails (e.g. a couple of kB). Since the
symmetric cipher is usually much easier computationally (that's one of
the reasons for going for a hybrid cipher system), the encryption of the
session key starts to dominate the operation, and in my case, there's a
noticable difference of the order of a number of seconds between the two
types of keys.
Most of my emails are short, between members of the team, some of which
have 1024-bit keys, some 2048, some 4096. Adding on a 5-second delay to
the sending of every email can be a bit of an annoyance (although we
have to live with it...), and although the effect is less pronounced on
decryption, it's still noticeable and probably even more important.
More information about the Gnupg-users