Timeline for Why are recomended RSA key lengths so high? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 14:10 | comment | added | user991 | The biggest paragraph in your question refers to a smaller number. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 14:05 | comment | added | JaimeCastells | @RickyDemer, that is the paper I referenced in my the last paragraph of my question. In that paper, the researchers call-out limitations in their methodology that prevent it from scaling well. If that is the strongest and most recent work on the subject, than the 1024 bit RSA number is still quite secure. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 9:05 | history | closed | CodesInChaos | Duplicate of Security strength of RSA in relation with the modulus size | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 6:23 | answer | added | Garry | timeline score: -1 | |
| S Feb 18, 2016 at 6:04 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 5:32 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/700191127174045696 | ||
| Feb 18, 2016 at 5:17 | comment | added | user991 | This announces the factorization of a larger number. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 3:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 18, 2016 at 6:04 | |||||
| Feb 17, 2016 at 22:04 | answer | added | Azarinak | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 21:55 | history | edited | JaimeCastells | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 21:53 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 17, 2016 at 22:00 | |||||
| Feb 17, 2016 at 21:49 | history | asked | JaimeCastells | CC BY-SA 3.0 |