[147270] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] RSA equivalent key length/strength
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Farrell)
Tue Sep 24 09:39:08 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 19:00:28 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Patrick Pelletier <code@funwithsoftware.org>
In-Reply-To: <523E34A6.2010004@funwithsoftware.org>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>,
Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>,
Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 09/22/2013 01:07 AM, Patrick Pelletier wrote:
> "1024 bits is enough for anyone"
That's a mischaracterisation I think. Some folks (incl. me)
have said that 1024 DHE is arguably better that no PFS and
if current deployments mean we can't ubiquitously do better,
then we should recommend that as an option, while at the same
time recognising that 1024 is relatively short.
S.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
