On 21 May 2007 19:44, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> http://www.physorg.com/news98962171.html > > My take: clearly, 1024 bits is no longer sufficient for RSA use for > high value applications, though this has been on the horizon for some > time. Presumably, it would be a good idea to use longer keys for all > applications, including "low value" ones, provided that the slowdown > isn't prohibitive. As always, I think the right rule is "encrypt until > it hurts, then back off until it stops hurting"... It's interesting, but given that they don't (according to the article) appear to have used any innovative techniques, just yer bog-standard special NFS, shouldn't we really just file this under the "Moore's law continues to apply as expected" folder? It's not the same degree of worrying as TWINKLE and TWIRL. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
