Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 21:03 UTC

To: Cfrg <cfrg@irtf.org>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 14:03:13 -0700
Message-Id: <20161104210313.4C668406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/vVUTUWRew-WP_Fxb4yt8sp_JG8g>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA
Precedence: list

phill@hallambaker.com said:
> So expect RSA 1024 to certainly fall by 2030 and probably by 2025. 

What are the right units for that discussion?

I think it has to include cost and time-to-solve.  For compute-intensive 
approaches that parallize, the time part drops out.  There are probably 2 
paths, one using COTS gear and another using ASICs.

Is there something like Moore's Law for breaking crypto?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Derek Atkins
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Peter Gutmann
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Hanno Böck
[Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Erik Andersen
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Paul Grubbs
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Hal Murray
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Ilari Liusvaara
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Peter Gutmann
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Erik Andersen
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA John Mattsson
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Hanno Böck
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Erik Andersen
Re: [Cfrg] 1024 bit RSA Peter Gutmann