标签:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/which-is-better-rsa-or-dsa-public-key-12593/
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/users/2005-01/msg00140.html
http://www.seedmuse.com/rsa_edit.htm
From: | Adrian Bocaniciu <a.bocaniciu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:22 +0000 |
I‘ve read a few pieces which recommend RSA over DSA, although most Re: RSA vs DSA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kris Maglione wrote: > So, what about "(b) RSA is just a better protocol [(algorighm)]"? > I‘ve read a few pieces which recommend RSA over DSA, although most > crypto programs (OpenSSL/SSH etc.) say RSA is depricated/a last resort. > Any insights? Neither DSA nor RSA are deprecated. Both algorithms are OK to use for digital signatures (i.e. the signatures cannot be forged now or in the near future), if their parameters, i.e. the key lengths, are chosen correctly. The RSA algorithm can also be used for public-key encryption, but that is not recommended, because there are better ways to accomplish that and also because some older variants of using RSA for encryption are broken. (Despite that, most HTTPS Web sites are still using obsolete SSL libraries or configurations, which also use RSA for encryption, not only for authentication). DSA and RSA are the only digital signature algorithms that are both standardized and free from patents. There was a time when RSA was not recommended because it was covered by a patent, but now that patent has expired. There are also other digital signature algorithms that are better for some applications, e.g. Rabin-Williams, which can be verified much faster than RSA, but they are not standardized (except in IEEE 1363, which is not widely implemented yet). Other algorithms, like those using elliptic curves, are claimed to be covered by US patents, so they cannot be recommended while there are free alternatives. For RSA, a 1536-bit key pair is recommended now for most uses e.g. SSH public-key authentication, but longer keys shall be used for signing documents that should not be forged even after many years. Nevertheless, most Web sites that use HTTPS, have only 1024-bit RSA key pairs, those are still reasonably secure for now, but in a few years they will become breakable. An 1536-bit RSA public/private key pair requires about the same time for breaking as a 90-bit key of a secret-key algorithm. Nonetheless, in reality 1536-bit RSA is much more secure than 90-bit, because either a huge memory (much beyond what is currently possible) is needed for the computation or, if the memory is unavailable, the computation becomes much slower, so the RSA key will be equivalent in strength with a longer secret key. RSA is more appropriate for signing certificates, because it can be verified faster, but for the authentication of the initial message exchange in network connection establishments, like in IPsec, TLS/SSL or SSH, DSA can be better, because there are an equal number of signing and verification operations, so only the sum of the execution times for signing and verification matters. DSA has the advantage that it has the same security as RSA at a shorter key length, i.e. 1280-bit DSA has about the same security as 1536-bit RSA. For that reason I always use 1280-bit DSA key pairs for SSH authentication, i.e. the keys are generated with "ssh-keygen -t dsa -b 1280", both for the server host key and for the users‘ workstations. DSA has a disadvantage that is not a property of the algorithm but only of its implementation in OpenSSL, OpenSSH and other common programs, it has several parameters that must be increased simultaneously for better security, but applications like ssh-keygen let you specify only the key length and they keep the other parameters unchanged. Because of that it is absolutely useless to increase the DSA key length beyond 1280-bit, because the security is not improven. On the other hand, with RSA you can specify 2048-bit, 3072-bit or longer key pairs, if you so desire. Best regards !
标签:
原文地址:http://www.cnblogs.com/jvava/p/4317718.html