> Yes, you do ;-) Key lengths for symmetric ciphers and key
> lengths for public key cryptosystems are not equivalent. Although
> it is hard to draw equivalences, a DH or RSA modulus length of 1024,
> probably the smallest reasonable length to provide adequate
> security, is roughly equivalent to a symmetric cipher key length
> of 90 bits. Rijndael with 128 bits is probably quite secure.
> Assuming that brute force key search is the best way to find
> a plaintext from a given ciphertext, a 128 bit key would place
> that recovery out of reach for hundreds of years using all of the
> available computing power on the planet. Attacks against DH
> and RSA are somewhat different -- these amount to finding better
> algorithms to solve the discrete log problem (DH) or finding
> prime factors of a composite.
Thanks for the detailed clarification. I can then extrapolate that Rijndael
can be used as the block cipher in network encryption only if its symmetric key
were to be encrypted with the intended recipient's public key. This seems to be
undesirable practice since it offers no more security than public key
encryption. I'm wondering, are there any alternatives to DH/RSA/DSA for
sharing a cipher key over an insecure network? Why isn't AES more suited to
PKI, seeing as they tout it as the "new business standard"?
Thank-you for your time,and I apologize if I'm bothering you excessively... :-)
--
<==================================>
Bryan Mongeau
Programmer
eEvolved Real-Time Technologies Inc.
<==================================>
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."--
Einstein
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
