I think 4096 bit RSA is a little silly, but in a normal GPG setting it doesn't matter; do whatever makes you feel best.
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers
by marcosdumay on Sunday May 24, 2015 @09:41AM
(#9596199)
Why is it silly? 2048 bits RSA isn't even 128 bits level, and lots of software makes it easier to use 4096 bits keys than 3072 bits ones.
The thing that puts RSA-2048 in reach of attackers is going to eliminate RSA altogether.
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers
by marcosdumay on Sunday May 24, 2015 @09:48PM
(#9598273)
Fair point, but if I were to use RSA (sure, better avoiding it at all), I'd still go into a 4096 bits key, hoping to outsurvive the algorithm long enough for a safe migration.
Anyway, I don't get your (as in most security experts) aversion to long keys and multiple algorithms. As an engineer, I see cryptography taking a very small amount of the resources, but holding a huge share of the risk of any security application. My guts are always pointing into moving more resources into crypto.
Recommendation for 4096R is caused by the fact that it is both reasonably secure and widely supported at same time.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "nice properties"?
> If using GPG means you can delegate away all your crypto design, use GPG.
Using which key types, ciphers, etc? The most common recommendation seems to be for 4096R keys and SHA2 hashes; the latter is consistent with the recommendations posted here, but the former seems to disagree with the comment to not use RSA for asymmetric crypto.