RSA 1024 ridiculous

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I just read the latest CRYPTO-GRAM, June 15, 2007, by Bruce Schneier. He writes: We have a new factoring record: 307 digits (1023 bits). It's a special number -- 2^1039 - 1 -- but the techniques can be generalized. Expect regular 1024-bit

Re: RSA 1024 ridiculous

Snoken wrote: Hi, I just read the latest CRYPTO-GRAM, June 15, 2007, by Bruce Schneier. He writes: We have a new factoring record: 307 digits (1023 bits). It's a special number -- 2^1039 - 1 -- but the techniques can be generalized. Expect regular 1024-bit numbers to be factored soon.

RE: RSA 1024 ridiculous

Snoken wrote: I suppose this means that 1024 bit RSA-keys are ridiculous and the Open PGP Card is a joke. And what about all web sites protected by SSL with a 1024-bit RSA-certificate? This seems to be more-or-less on schedule:

Failing to compile in MacOS X [Announce] Libgcrypt 1.3.0 (development) released

Werner Koch wrote the following on 5/4/07 2:48 PM: Hello! We are pleased to announce the availability of Libgcrypt 1.3.0. This is the first release of a series of development versions ebentually leading to a new stable 1.4 series. [...] Configured for: Darwin

Re: RSA 1024 ridiculous

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'll get back to this bit in a moment. ;) I suppose this means that 1024 bit RSA-keys are ridiculous and the Open PGP Card is a joke. Not necessarily. There's certainly a strong argument to be

Re: RSA 1024 ridiculous

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Snoken wrote: Hi, I just read the latest CRYPTO-GRAM, June 15, 2007, by Bruce Schneier. He writes: We have a new factoring record: 307 digits (1023 bits). It's a special number -- 2^1039 - 1 -- but the techniques can be generalized.

Re: RSA 1024 ridiculous

Andrew Berg wrote: Anyone who's worried about an entity with the power needed to break their messages in time to make any use of it has probably already been using a longer key size for a while now. Or, more likely for someone that paranoid, a one time pad. Ben

Re: Failing to compile in MacOS X [Announce] Libgcrypt 1.3.0 (development) released

Charly Avital wrote: We are pleased to announce the availability of Libgcrypt 1.3.0. This is the first release of a series of development versions ebentually leading to a new stable 1.4 series. Configured for: Darwin (i386-apple-darwin8.9.1),MacOS X 10.4.9 No problems here with Darwin

Re: Failing to compile in MacOS X [Announce] Libgcrypt 1.3.0 (development) released

Benjamin Donnachie wrote the following on 6/16/07 9:01 PM: Charly Avital wrote: We are pleased to announce the availability of Libgcrypt 1.3.0. This is the first release of a series of development versions ebentually leading to a new stable 1.4 series. Configured for: Darwin