[tor-dev] Discussion on the crypto migration plan of the identity keys of Hidden Services

David Vorick david.vorick at gmail.com
Fri May 17 15:29:44 UTC 2013

Why are so many bits necessary? Isn't 128bits technically safe against
brute force? At 256 bits you are pretty much safe from any volume of
computational power that one could fathom within this century. The only
real danger is a new computational model that is nondeterministic or
something crazy like that. I feel like what exists currently (from a
quantity of bits standpoint) is more than sufficient.

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, adrelanos <adrelanos at riseup.net> wrote:

> George Kadianakis:
> > Thoughts?
> Can you make .onion domains really long and therefor really safe against
> brute force?
> Or have an option for maximum key length and a weaker default if common
> CPU's are still too slow? I mean, if you want to make 2048 bit keys the
> default because you feel most hidden services have CPU's which are too
> slow for 4096 bit keys, then use 2048 bit as default with an option to
> use the max. of 4096 bit.
> Bonus point: Can you make the new implementation support less painful
> updates (anyone or everyone) when the next update will be required?
> (forward compatibility)
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20130517/1b501536/attachment.html>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list