In the real world, it's best to use at least two or more algorithms to encrypt data.

From what I know, RSA acts as a wrapper to transfer data safely across web systems or API(s), or acts as a wrapper for symmetric keys such as AES.

If computational power and time are not the main factor (it has reached the secure standard), why is there (from what I know), no one using RSA to really encrypt data instead of just wrapping them up (as stated by the two usages)?

What I meant was really using it alongside other encryption algorithms such as AES.

Wouldn't the stored data be safer in this way (considering that the network is secure from both outsider and insider attack)?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is a reason needed beyond x10000 more computational power to decrypt or sign large messages, and 25% more data to send? $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Mar 11 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fgrieu And more difficulty implementing the algorithm correctly (bignum math is harder than bit twiddling) and securely (naive AES is vulnerable to timing attacks but their mitigation is well-understood; constant-time RSA is harder). And you'd still have to design an operating mode to encrypt more than one block's worth of data. $\endgroup$ – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 11 at 15:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hern I would say that it might be best to step back and formulate one direct question that the fine folks here can chew on. Concerning your first sentence, it is clear that more is not necessarily better in cryptography--not at all. $\endgroup$ – Patriot Mar 11 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry to post this question in the first place, I have already get the replies from patriot, giles and fgrieu. Thanks for your time in replying my post´╝îI will post more straight forward questions from now on if help and guidance were needed. Sorry... $\endgroup$ – Hern Mar 11 at 16:18

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.