alt Hacker NewsThe cost per bit is a doubling in time. So factoring a 512 RSA, compared to a 1024 RSA is significantly cheaper. The OP used contemporary hardware to do this. so, we'd have to ask if the orders of magnitude improvement in tech (QC aside) would permit 1024 in tractable time. I tend to no, but I appreciate there are other points of view. And of course, the belief that one day we can apply Shor with success exists. At which point the question is moot. Not that Shor does not itself demand significantly more stable gates, per extra bit of RSA. I always wonder why people don't look at the trend line in stable QuBits and the trendline in cost of RSA. Do the lines intersect?
Remember, Shor is like a coded gate level algorithm expressed as sequences of interconnected stable QuBits. So, if you double the cost for each RSA bit you add, its not "nothing" in terms of how you wire the rig.
(not a cryptographer, or a QC person so I expect to be hit by a very cold but stable quantum clue-by-four shortly. Maybe they have to hit me 1 million times, to confirm I'm hit. Its statistics.)
Replies
Doubling per bit is for symmetric encryption, where no attack better than brute force is known. RSA can be attacked using much faster techniques than brute force.
There are techniques to speed up the search for RSA keys quite significantly: they don't scale as with a pure brute force search, nor with a very useful rule of thumb (it's not even the case that doubling the RSA key length doubles its effective security, it's actually a fair bit less than that).
It’s not quite a doubling per bit, which is why RSA keys are relatively large compared to similar-strength ECDSA keys, for example.
Steve Weis, who has been doing RSA factoring on some large GPU clusters, estimates factoring 1024-bit RSA would take about 2000 GPU-years, which is well within the range of anyone with a serious budget.