Jonathan Ely <thaj...@gmail.com> writes: > I really wish 8192 would become available. Not that it would be the end > all/be all of key security but according to your theory it sounds much > more difficult to crack.
Take that a few steps further. Why not use 99999999999999999999999-bit keys? Because they are much more difficult to compute. In fact if you go above a certain key size, since IIRC the exponent e is standardized and thus limited, your discrete logarithm is no longer discrete and so your key security just vanishes. In any case, 4096 bits will be secure for some time to come, and yes 8192 bits would be even more secure. We can take that as far as we wish but there are limits in the standard, in compatibility, and in the current implementation. -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
pgplvvBer6yn7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
