Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)
From: Matthias Buelow (mkb@mukappabeta.de)
Date: 08/28/02
- Next message: Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Previous message: Colin Percival: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: =?iso-8859-1?B?U3RlZmFuIEty/Gdlcg== ?=: "1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Next in thread: Dave Taira: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:57:55 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de> To: Stefan Krüger <skrueger@europe.com>
Stefan Krüger wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've just read:
>
> http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0204.html#3 and
> http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/263924
>
> and maybe we should update our rc scripts,
> so that ssh-keygen generates at least 1280 Bit keys
I think this is highly overrated and only of theoretical
value for most *BSD users. It would be ok to document,
for some paranoid users which fall for the hype but then
please leave it at that. Some of us run NetBSD on old
hardware and don't want to be crippled by excessive
default values with little or no practical impact.
--mkb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Previous message: Colin Percival: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: =?iso-8859-1?B?U3RlZmFuIEty/Gdlcg== ?=: "1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Next in thread: Dave Taira: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]