Re: WARNING!

[mgream@acacia.itd.uts.edu.au (Matthew Gream)]

"ER CRAMER" wrote:

> > them become the de-facto standard?  If a leter release turns out to be
> > incompatible with an older one, but it's cryptographically superior, then
> > it's time to switch, even if it means generating and distributing new keys.
> 
> And it is superior indeed... But what are we talking about here. A 1024 bits
> key should be save for at least the next 10000 years so who cares if a 5000
> bits key could be save for maybe a 1000000 years!!! 

And if a near polynomial time method is developed for factoring or
breaking RSA (or any other PKCS you care to mention), super large keys
aren't going to matter a hoot.

Anyway, it's a subjective choice if you decide to use super large keys,
I don't think people should be flamed for making that choice. Sure,
point out to them the fact that it doesn't really give any extra
security, but it makes some people _feel_ secure, so let them be. Some
people waste money protecting themselves against things that are
statistically less likely to happen than things they don't protect
themselves against, but it makes them happy.

If people want to choose large key sizes that aren't supported by
software, then they're the ones that suffer the most, by way of
decreased audience. If enough people use super large keys, then maybe
software developers will come around to supporting them -- market
forces and all that.

It's kind of funny to see bickering over bigger keys, I thought
cypherpunks would be happy with people demanding or wanting bigger keys
:-). What's important is that people are deciding not to use smaller
keys and they're realising the need and requirements for strong crypto
through bigger keys.

Big is good, Bigger is good, Smaller is doubleplus ungood :-)

cheers,
Matthew.

-- 
Matthew Gream <M.Gream@uts.edu.au> -- Consent Technologies, (02) 821-2043
Disclaimer: I'm only a student at UTS, and don't represent them.