From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20271 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2023 19:46:38 -0000 Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 26 Nov 2023 19:46:38 -0000 Received: from duke.felloff.net ([216.126.196.34]) by 9front; Sun Nov 26 14:43:36 -0500 2023 Message-ID: <7D815659CDA544149A6CA4CB32684F2C@felloff.net> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 20:43:27 +0100 From: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: wrapper strategy singleton-scale interface Subject: Re: [9front] auth/rsagen: bump bits to 4096 Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk > It's some logic you just made up :P - I never said I wouldn't propose > changing it if we had EC kex. I probably would have not picked 4096 though. my point was that i do not see the connection between them. what has the availability of ec todo with the rsa key size? the only place where i see a connection is if you would want to "nudge" users into not using rsa and for that you sabotage it beyond any reason. but this would be pretty nasty thing todo no? > I haven't hit any issues - and I am on some pretty shitty internet. I > haven't tested extensively though. That said, IMO if people need speed > they can still generate smaller keys... common, just quantify it. whats the actual timing differences? like make a test program i can run on my raspberry pi... do SOMETHING usefull that helps quantifying the impact. -- cinap