On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:08 PM, John Clizbe j...@enigmail.net wrote:
Larger and larger RSA keys aren't the solution, ECC is. The balance of power
has
tipped away from RSA and toward ECC.
Feel free to ignore everything I've said. There's no reason you should trust
me. But by all means,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
A lot of people like to refer to _Applied Cryptography_ or _The Handbook
of Applied Cryptography_ for information on algorithms, and for very
good reason: they've generally got excellent information. They are also
On 2/1/12 9:43 AM, Chris Poole wrote:
Are you able to recommend any particular resources or books that
cover ECC in a more complete and up to date fashion?
Many. The real question is what level of depth you want.
Googling for nsa suite b qould be a pretty good starting place,
probably. The
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:43, li...@chrispoole.com said:
Are you able to recommend any particular resources or books that cover ECC in
a
more complete and up to date fashion?
@book{Hankerson:2003:GEC:940321,
author = {Hankerson, Darrel and Menezes, Alfred J. and Vanstone, Scott},
title =
On 1 Feb 2012, at 15:00, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
Googling for nsa suite b qould be a pretty good starting place,
probably. The National Security Agency has approved the use of ECC for
classified material as part of their Suite B cryptography package. As
is the case with
On 1 Feb 2012, at 15:41, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org wrote:
@book{Hankerson:2003:GEC:940321
Thank you, that's useful.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
A 1024-bit key has about an 80-bit keyspace, which is a factor of 16 million
larger. Given the advances in supercomputing in the last decade it is
reasonable to believe 1024-bit keys are either breakable now or
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 02:18:54PM +, Chris Poole wrote:
If the only purpose of the primary key (in my case, where I have subkeys for
signing and encryption) is to sign the subkeys, why not simply make it
stupidly
large? Equivalent to 256 bits with a symmetric cipher, or 512 bits?
On 1/23/12 9:18 AM, Chris Poole wrote:
If the only purpose of the primary key (in my case, where I have subkeys for
signing and encryption) is to sign the subkeys
How do you enforce that? If it is technically possible to sign a
document with your primary key, then good luck telling a judge no,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
You may say the only purpose of the primary key is to sign the subkeys,
but if it's technically possible for the primary key to sign documents
then the purpose of the primary key is to sign documents.
This is why I
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, brian m. carlson
sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
Because it's also used to sign other people's keys. Using a very large
key (for 256-bit equivalence, ~15kbits) makes verification so slow as to
be unusable. You have to not only verify signatures on other
Chris Poole wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, brian m. carlson
sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
Because it's also used to sign other people's keys. Using a very large
key (for 256-bit equivalence, ~15kbits) makes verification so slow as to
be unusable. You have to not only verify
On 1/23/12 4:08 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
Depending on the source, a consensus seems to be forming that beyond
a 2048 or 3072 bit modulus for DSA2 or RSA, folks need to switch to
ECC.
Emphatic agreement -- this is clarification, not dispute:
A lot of people like to refer to _Applied
Am Freitag, 20. Januar 2012, 21:15:29 schrieb Chris Poole:
The encryption and signing is still being done by the subkeys, so is
it simply that they're signed by the parent 1024-bit key, and this key
is easier to fake?
Yes. If the main key is compromised then
a) certifications for other keys
On 1/20/2012 3:15 PM, Chris Poole wrote:
Since it's now recommended (to my knowledge) to use 2048-bit keys and
above, how does having a 1024-bit keypair affect me?
It depends entirely on what you're doing with it. Breaking a 1024-bit
key is within the realm of possibility for a ridiculously
Hi,
I created a gpg keypair a while ago, when the default was still 1024D.
This has a 4096g encryption subkey, and a 2048D signing subkey.
Since it's now recommended (to my knowledge) to use 2048-bit keys and
above, how does having a 1024-bit keypair affect me?
The encryption and signing is
16 matches
Mail list logo
