With the default having to be increased in less than a few months, I was a little surprised to see that google, having recently trumpeted about their "encrypted" search is using 1024bits.
Elliptic curve cryptography can get away with less bits in the keys than RSA at the moment. We do a better job of breaking RSA than elliptic curves. I don't know about Diffie-Hellman, which is based on discrete logarithms.
Comments
Interesting article, lead me on a bit of a side tangent to my usual monday morning.
Based on people saying that 1024 bit RSA is no longer considered secure. I hunted down what I believe is at least one source from nist.gov.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id...
With the default having to be increased in less than a few months, I was a little surprised to see that google, having recently trumpeted about their "encrypted" search is using 1024bits.
https://encrypted.google.com/
If you check their certificates you will see it is 1024bit.
I was hoping to compare it to https://duckduckgo.com, yet it turns out they too are running 1024bits.
I hasten to add, I dont really understand the significance of different ciphers used etc, this is purely based on bits.
Elliptic curve cryptography can get away with less bits in the keys than RSA at the moment. We do a better job of breaking RSA than elliptic curves. I don't know about Diffie-Hellman, which is based on discrete logarithms.