"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.