From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 24 19:34:16 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EBE1065676
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:34:16 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rsimmons0@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.220.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AEB8FC0A
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:34:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vcbfy7 with SMTP id fy7so2049768vcb.13
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type; bh=2buQ7GizoFKM/bcWLPFsZAYtNNRjSTsXI3gdsiAWJeo=;
	b=uwaXu1Seaia42ogCoNqEWrOs3FQiU8PLWhNjCdmKSUYGaYLFHL+qss/wbyAFVQFXut
	b3WJJFuiO60xPPNyHjz3QP8Bfs/TnZfTJM2h5MpwpXe/AbUZyczN7haISA0QQcVQRTtC
	trX8nJZLr01I9Qg3FcFHz5qOoNTKSM2Dp0DIKtOp0p5gwt3wCehex/Dr3cgHvQYp+ZwZ
	g3ntDbB8dtHQ95DiJEEdK1jrdROcvcoBJlEBKMiJLCTeHYExbkEoh2c1sofEjuh3dCEp
	2JDdjySc+BF5uIs14xx2t3cgr/fEO6PMBXMbHfLkUdDUcJe+Ex83F6LigIyhoBd9gO20
	kB9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.221.1.76 with SMTP id np12mr3154957vcb.46.1340566455795; Sun,
	24 Jun 2012 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.16.148 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.wge77quh34t2sn@skeletor.feld.me>
References: <CA+QLa9A4gdgPEn3YBpExTG05e4mqbgxr2kJ16BQ27OSozVmmwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.wge77quh34t2sn@skeletor.feld.me>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:34:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+QLa9B8P7-xKT882cMLrtrw++gsUxxVy=FTSSss1d_Cpod+Lg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: Hardware potential to duplicate existing host keys... RSA DSA
 ECDSA was Add rc.conf variables...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:34:16 -0000

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:34:45 -0500, Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In light of advanced in processors and GPUs, what is the potential for
>> duplication of RSA, DSA, and ECDSA keys at the current default key
>> lengths (2048, 1024, and 256 respectively)?
>>
>
> I've been able to duplicate keys for years simply using cp(1)
>
> Define "duplicate". Are you asking about some sort of collision? Are you
> asking about brute forcing an encrypted stream and deducing what the private
> key is?

And as a flip side to the argument, is there a reason not to raise the
default to 4096?  Certainly the same advances in processors makes this
size key quite usable.  I've seen no noticeable slowness with 4096 bit
RSA or 521 bit ECDSA.