Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1024-bit RSA keys In Danger Of Compromise?

Posted by Hemos on from the well-of-course-they-are dept.

antiher0 writes "According to an email from Lucky Green that came across bugtraq yesterday, 1024-bit encryption should no longer be considered pristine. Bernstein released a proposal that outlines the creation of a machine capable of breaking 1024-bit crypto on the order of minutes or even seconds for the measly cost of ~$1B USD. For a more thorough discussion, check out the original email." Update: 03/26 03:16 GMT by T : And don't forget to revisit Bruce Schneier's analysis of Bernstein's claims, which cast doubt on the practicality of breaking such large keys anytime soon.

3 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. The main problem as I see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    There are those folks who exist that are simply too stupid to run a Unix-like operating system. You know who they are; in fact, many of them frequent this very site with their IE browsers and MSN Messenger rip-offs of applications that were too innovative for Microsoft to come up with themselves even though they spend more money on R&D than any other company in the history of the world.

    My friends, co-workers, and I refer to these individuals as people with TSTR*, or Too Stupid To Run *nix syndrome.

    Do YOU know anyone suffering from this? If so, please make a note of it and remind them of their simple minds whenever they mumble some "*nix isn't ready for the desk top" while you're using KDE 3 and Evolution, which are a superior desktop environment and mail client, respectively.

    1. Re:The main problem as I see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      What I find hard to understand is why Apple users are disproportionately homosexual. Sure, there
      are some normal people who use Apple computers, but most Apple users are indeed "gay".

  2. Re:Clearing up the deceptive intro by Glorat · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    You're accusing me of not reading the title but you obviously haven't read my title. I'll spell it out for you again... "Re:Clearing up the deceptive intro". It is the intro that is wrong. I even quoted the incorrect sentence: "1024-bit encryption should no longer be considered pristine".

    Got it now?

    Hypocrite.