RSA Security Concerns

The cluster focuses on debates about the security and future viability of RSA cryptography, including vulnerabilities of specific key sizes like 1024-bit and 2048-bit, implications if broken, and comparisons to alternatives.

➡️ Stable 0.5x Security
2,816
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#255
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
2
2008
3
2009
40
2010
61
2011
72
2012
125
2013
330
2014
150
2015
198
2016
179
2017
182
2018
115
2019
200
2020
187
2021
282
2022
161
2023
156
2024
205
2025
166
2026
2

Keywords

e.g trailofbits.com NFS NMR eprint.iacr RSA AMD twitter.com HTTPS ECC rsa key prime keys ecc gigantic 1024 bit public key attacks

Sample Comments

nktr1 Aug 13, 2014 View on HN

You talk bad about RSA and use RSA keys at the same time?

arange Oct 7, 2013 View on HN

For us that don't understand, what does this mean? Is RSA less secure now?

sscarduzio Dec 29, 2017 View on HN

Why can’t we just keep on using RSA with a huge key?

witty_username Dec 14, 2015 View on HN

RSA 1024 bit keys are endangered. AES nope.

fgimenez May 10, 2009 View on HN

RSA being broken is not optimistic

tnash Nov 10, 2017 View on HN

At what point do we no longer trust public key cryptography (RSA)? Where's the break point?

greggarious Jan 3, 2023 View on HN

What practical things can be done once RSA is broken?

sva_ Apr 15, 2022 View on HN

Consider your 2-bit RSA keys to be 99% compromised.

tonysdg Oct 19, 2017 View on HN

Because it means that some RSA keys may be weaker than others. Without diving too far into the mathematics of it, the RSA cryptosystem (and indeed, many asymmetric-key cryptosystems) is based on the notion that multiplying two gigantic prime numbers together to get another gigantic non-prime number is easy; but taking a gigantic non-prime number and figuring out which two prime numbers were multiplied together is incredibly hard. This conjecture, if true, means that for some gigantic non-prime n

jonathanstrange May 24, 2019 View on HN

So RSA should be considered broken?