1024 位 rsa 安全
1024 位 rsa 安全吗？或者现在可以破解吗？我的程序使用 1024 位 rsa 安全吗？我在 http://pcworld.about.com/ 阅读od/privacysecurity1/Researcher-RSA-1024-bit-encry.htm 认为 1024 位加密不安全，但我发现 2048 位较慢，而且我还看到各种 https 网站（甚至 paypal）使用 1024 位加密。 1024 位加密足够安全吗？
Is 1024 bit rsa secure, or is it crackable now? Is it safe for my program to use 1024 bit rsa? I read at http://pcworld.about.com/od/privacysecurity1/Researcher-RSA-1024-bit-encry.htm that 1024 bit encryption is unsecure, but I find 2048 bit slower, and also I see that various https sites (even paypal) use 1024 bit encryption. Is 1024 bit encryption secure enough?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（7）
我上次检查时，NIST 建议使用 2048 位 RSA，并预测它将保持安全直到 2030 年。 此 PDF 有表格。
编辑：他们实际上预测 2010 年之前 1024 位是可以的，然后到 2030 年是 2048 位，之后是 3072 位。这是 NIST，而不是 NSA。好久没写论文了，哈哈。
Last time I checked, NIST recommends 2048-bit RSA and predicts that it will remain secure until 2030. Page 67 of this PDF has the table.
Edit: They actually predict 1024-bit is OK until 2010, then 2048-bit until 2030, then 3072-bit after that. And it's NIST, not the NSA. Been too long since I did my thesis, LOL.
你想保护什么？如果您要加密的内容不是非常重要，那么 1024 位可能没问题，但是，如果您要保护非常重要的内容（例如某人的医疗或财务信息），那么 4096 位会更好。
密钥的大小实际上取决于您要保护的内容以及您期望加密保留的时间。如果您的时间范围是信息仅有效 10 分钟，那么 1024 就可以了，但对于 10 年的保护则不然。
那么，你在保护什么？
What are you trying to protect? If you are encrypting something that is not terribly vital, then 1024 may be fine, but, if you are protecting something that is very vital, such as someone's medical or financial info then 4096 bits would be better.
The size of the key really depends on what you are protecting, and how long you expect the encryption to hold. If your timeframe is that the info is only valid for 10 mins then 1024 works fine, for 10 years of protection it isn't.
So, what are you protecting?
对于“大小n安全吗？”这个问题没有简单的答案。因为这取决于预期攻击者的资源。这有两个部分：
因此，各个研究人员和政府机构提出了几种估计。 此网站提供了此类方法的调查，并带有在线计算器，以便您可以稍微使用一些输入参数。
简短的回答是，如果您想要短期安全（即安全性在 2015 年之后不再相关）并且 1024 位对您来说还不够，那么您的敌人确实必须非常强大。可怕的是。以至于你手上应该还有其他更紧急的麻烦。
There is no easy answer to the question "is size n secure ?" because it depends on the resources of an expected attacker. This has two parts:
So there are several estimates which have been proposed by various researchers and government institutes. This site offers a survey of such methods, with online calculators so that you may play a bit with some of the input parameters.
Short answer is that if you want short-term security (i.e. security is not relevant beyond, say, year 2015) and 1024 bits are not enough for you, then your enemies must be very powerful indeed. Scarily so. To the point that you should have other, more urgent trouble on your hands.
有必要定义安全的含义以获得有用的答案。
你的房子安全吗？大多数情况下，我们让它“足够好”。例如，比邻居更难闯入通常就足够了。这样小偷就会花时间试图闯入隔壁而不是你的地方。
如果需要X小时才能闯入并且有价值的内容值得Y，那么它可能是安全的。将时间转化为金钱是很棘手的，但如果破解者需要花费 100 个小时的时间才能侵入，并且您的信息内容价值（例如 100 美元），那么您的数据可能足够安全。
It is necessary to define the meaning of secure to get a useful answer.
Is your house secure? Mostly we make it "good enough." For example, making it harder to break in than the neighbors is often adequate. That way the thieves spend time trying to break into next door rather than your place.
It might be secure if it requires X hours to break in and the valuable content is worth Y. Converting time to money is tricky, but if it takes a cracker 100 hours of his time to break in, and the contents of your information is worth, say $100, then your data is probably secure enough.
没有什么是永远绝对安全的。如果您很担心，只需使用 2048 位并牺牲速度以获得更好的安全性。
此外，正如文章所述：
这完全取决于您是否认为人们实际上会努力获取您想要保护的任何信息。
Nothing is going to be totally secure forever. If you're that worried about it, just use 2048-bit and sacrifice speed for better security.
Besides, as the article states:
It all depends on whether or not you think people will actually try that hard to get at whatever information you're trying to protect.
找到一篇最近的论文正好解决了这个问题：
http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/389 .pdf
Found a recent paper addressing exactly this question:
http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/389.pdf
据说，目前 1024 位数字无法分解，但 RSA 1024 位（大约 310 位十进制数字）被认为不够安全。如果需要长期安全性，建议使用 2048 位或更多的 RSA。有太多资金雄厚的研究公司在进行研究，但他们有可能根本不会分享所有内容。所以我认为，我们可以说它根本不安全。我的意思是，如果有一天我碰巧加密了一份重要数据，考虑到长期安全性和该领域的未知发展，我会更喜欢 2048 位或更多。
It is said that, currently 1024 bit numbers cannot be factored but, RSA 1024 bit (which is about 310 decimal digits) is not considered secured enough. It is advisable to use RSA with 2048 bit or more, if one needs long term security. There are too many research companies, which are well-funded, doing research and there is a chance that they would not share everything at all. So i think, we can say it is not secure at all. I mean, if one day I happened encrypt an important data, i would prefer 2048 bits or more considering the long term security and the unknown developments in that field.