Yuppa, Steffen Dettmer wrote: [...]
Well, and if you do not trust 1024 Bit, I really wonder why someone should upgrade to 4096 bit. IIRC adding tree bits or so of length would statistical double the needed break time. In that case, going from 1024 to 4096 bit would double 1024 times, that is 2^1024 (and not 2*1024!) which evaluates to
17976931348623159077293051907890247336179769789423065727343008115773\ 26758055009631327084773224075360211201138798713933576587897688144166\ 22492847430639474124377767893424865485276302219601246094119453082952\ 08500576883815068234246288147391311054082723716335051068458629823994\ 7245938479716304835356329624224137216
times. So even 2048 bits are really paranoid - assumed some agency use weeks of computing power of the billion dollar machine to break *your* 1024 SSH/SSL/TLS RSA key..
Quite right. On the other hand, I wouldn't even bet on a 2048 bit key in the wake of recent efforts (and steps forward) in quantum computing, but that's prolly just me. Fact is that good intelligence can be obtained by traffic analysis alone. In most cases, it's not necessary to brute-force into an encrypted message, so the key size alone is a good, but not the only factor in this "game". My $1. Could I have change, please. Boris ---