Subject: Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)
To: None <perry@piermont.com>
From: None <ark@eltex.ru>
List: tech-security
Date: 08/29/2002 14:48:23
Keep in mind that there are people who *spend* money on custom designed
hardware and there are people who just have _access_ to custom designed
hardware that costs millions of dollars.

(i.e. in mid-90s when my hat was black i used to have access to data downloaded
from damn expensive military satellite sniffer, no kidding)

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> said :

> 
> Mipam <mipam@ibb.net> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:57:55PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> > > >and maybe we should update our rc scripts,
> > > >so that ssh-keygen generates at least 1280 Bit keys
> > > 
> > > I think this is highly overrated and only of theoretical
> > > value for most *BSD users.
> > 
> > I dont think its too much overrated and theoretical.
> 
> I do. If someone with millions of dollars to spend on custom designed
> hardware wants to break into your computer, I assure you that
> increasing the size of your ssh keys will not stop them. Nor, for that
> matter, would the slow and tedious process of cracking your ssh keys
> be nearly as efficient as the more pragmatic alternatives.
> 
> That said, those running on newer hardware can probably reasonably use
> larger keys if they wish.

                                     _     _  _  _  _      _  _
 {::} {::} {::}  CU in Hell          _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
 (##) (##) (##)        /Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
 [||] [||] [||]            Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!