Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Dec 16, 2007 6:26 AM, Jerry Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote: > I was about to generate a new key for myself using RSA with a 2048 bit > key, but I noticed that the default for GNUPG is DSA and Elgamal. > I was wondering since the El Gamal encryption has fairly recently been > added to GNU PG, would I still be better to use RSA/2048. > > Since my use is mostly digital signatures, and very little to convey > secure information, I would think that 2048 would be fine. Just > looking for some opinions. I will be allowing my old key to expire. Elliptic curve functions are thought to be more secure, even at lower key lengths about ~10% of RSA key lengths. Here is an article on it from RSA... http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2013 So, a DSA key of 160 is almost equivalent to an RSA key of 1024 bits. Elliptic curve cryptosystems have not yet been proven to be less secure, but they are thought to be more secure given the current research. Here is how RSA and DSA differ... "Another class of puzzle involves solving the equation a^b = c for b when a and c are known. Such equations involving real or complex numbers are easily solved using logarithms. However, in some large finite groups, finding solutions to such equations is quite difficult and is known as the discrete logarithm problem." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_cryptography Or you could wait for ECDLP :-) -- Kristian Erik Hermansen "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |