Linux - SecurityThis forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Originally posted by Sonny At the risk of a newbie leading a newbie...
I've read that RSA is less secure than DSA but authenticates faster.
Sonny.
That's correct. But the speed difference in authentication is so small (if you talk about ssh'ing into a system with a regular size password of say 8 characters (or a few more if you use MD5) that you will not notice a difference.
So go with DSA. May as well go for more security and it pretty much doesn't come with a price.
DSA is faster in *signing*, but slower in *verifying*.
A DSA key of the same strength as RSA (1024 bits) generates a smaller signature.
An RSA 512 bit key has been cracked, but only a 280 DSA key.
It doesn't matter because with Ssh only authentication is done using RSA or DSA algorithm, and then the "rest" is encoded using a (uh, was it block?) cipher like IDEA, DES, Blowfish, etc, etc after the authentication is done.
While Ssh2 can use either DSA or RSA keys, Ssh1 cannot. Ssh2 will also not use patented cypers like IDEA.
More info here and here (the latter bein a wee bit old).
DSA is something that is actively pushed by the government, btw, because DSA cannot be used to encrypt stuff, only to sign it. RSA can be used to both encrypt AND sign.
That said, DSA is faster at signing. RSA is faster at verifying.
Really.. who cares. I use RSA just because I like to stick it to the G-man.
An RSA 512 bit key has been cracked, but only a 280 DSA key.
What kind of bullshit is this?.
Please, read about first. "A fellow by the name of Leo de Velez from the Phillipines had thought he had broken RSA, and a reporter colleague wrote up this story and published it. This is probably what you have heard about. " (Ron Rivers, the 'R' of RSA)
Here you can read the original mail between both: http://www.seedmuse.com/rsa_edit.htm
I agree that resurrecting a two year old dead thread for this is ridiculous. Furthermore, I find the language and tone of morphynoman's post to be objectionable. I'm closing this thread. If anyone has a desire to start another RSA/DSA discussion, start a new thread and use references as necessary.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.