|
|
|
|
|
|
by marcosdumay
4111 days ago
|
|
|
Symmetric encryption does not have the concept of a "private key". A 128 bits private key in TLS can only vary from almost useless (if it's some ECC algorithm) to completely useless (in case it's RSA). Too bad (but understandable) that the article does not give any detail. About a decade ago, 128 bits RSA keys were widely used (but not recommended anymore), I wouldn't be surprised to discover a bank didn't change their security procedures since then. |
|
|
In the early days of public key cryptography, the NSA referred to it as "non-private key cryptography".
Even today, people often refer to symmetric vs asymmetric and private vs public interchangeably. (Yes, it can cause confusion and you will probably never see professional cryptographers like Bernstein, Green, Lange, Schwabe, Schneier, or Wilcox-O'hearn refer to it that way.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric-key_algorithm#cite_n...
The author had multiple errors; it isn't beyond the limits of intellectual generosity to assume they meant symmetric key instead of private key.
> A 128 bits private key in TLS can only vary from almost useless (if it's some ECC algorithm) to completely useless (in case it's RSA).
128 bit EdDSA would have about the same security as a 64 bit block cipher, which we would consider broken. So I'm in full agreement there.
128 bit RSA? Totally useless.
128 bit AES? Not a concern. Usually you look at the padding, block mode, and authentication instead.