Timeline for ECC vs RSA: how to compare key sizes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2015 at 9:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/631032775999623168 | ||
| May 15, 2015 at 22:42 | vote | accept | user16538 | ||
| May 11, 2015 at 16:56 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | Of course for an extreme shortcut you could have a look at keylength.com and the referenced papers from Lenstra, NIST and ECRYPT II. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 15:55 | answer | added | SEJPM | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 11, 2015 at 15:26 | comment | added | SEJPM | well you also have to note that this is asymptotic notation. You need a reference point, as O(f(x))<k*f(x). So you need a point at which you consider both equal (like they need some computation effort to be broken) | |
| May 11, 2015 at 15:23 | comment | added | SEJPM | well lenstra and verheul analysed this quite well in 2000. Their goal was to give numbers on the developement of keysizes but for this they needed some sort of model. The text is worth reading and then you may understand. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 15:22 | history | edited | user16538 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2015 at 15:21 | comment | added | user16538 |
@CodesInChaos: using * instead of + I get that a 2048-bit RSA key corresponds to a 273-bit key, which is still incorrect, but is better. I know that I need to use the concrete cost, however I do not have it (and I am interested in an approximation, not the exact value).
|
|
| May 11, 2015 at 15:00 | comment | added | ddddavidee | you can find something here (3 links): gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#no_default_of_rsa4096 certsimple.com/blog/measuring-ssl-rsa-keys crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/8687/… | |
| May 11, 2015 at 14:58 | comment | added | CodesInChaos |
1) The number can't be right. 2048 bits RSA roughly corresponds to a 112 bit symmetric key or a 224 bit ECC key. 2) You wrote a + in the RSA formula where it should be a *. 3) The RSA formula is asymptotic, but you need concrete cost for the comparison.
|
|
| May 11, 2015 at 14:57 | comment | added | cygnusv | Your reasoning is in the good direction. Maybe Chapter 6 of this ECRYPT report is useful for you. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 14:36 | review | First posts | |||
| May 11, 2015 at 15:33 | |||||
| May 11, 2015 at 14:30 | history | asked | user16538 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |