Re: GPG key methods and sizes

["Jerry Feldman-2" <user=4@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:59 -0500 
Dan Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> The only reason not to choose a longer key length is the extra 
> time it takes to encrypt/decrypt. Why don't you test out DSA, 
> RSA-2048, and  RSA-4096 on the hardware you use most often and 
> see how much of a delay you can stand? 

The issue here is not so much the amount of delay on my system, but on 
recipients. 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:30:55 -0800 
"Kristian Erik Hermansen" <[hidden email]> wrote: 

> 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.   

Good discussion.  This gives me some additional  information. As I 
mentioned, I'm not really looking for high security, but my key is 
about 10 years old, which is way too old for a key.  Looks like the 
DSA/Elgamel combination is reasonable. 


-- 
Jerry Feldman <[hidden email]> 
Boston Linux and Unix user group 
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 
_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss