Longer keys are more difficult to crack. Most symmetric keys today are 100 to 300 bits long. Why don’t systems use far longer symmetric keys—say, 1,000 bit keys?
Longer symmetric keys are generally more difficult to crack due to the increased number of possible combinations. The choice of symmetric key length is a trade-off between security, performance, and practicality. Longer keys provide greater security, but the associated challenges in performance, management, and compatibility often limit their use in everyday systems.
– Systems don’t use longer symmetric keys because of computational requirements and resource costs which impact performance making them slow and inefficient.
– The management of longer keys can be more challenging for secure storage and handling bits, leading to administrative overhead and potential security risks.
– Compatibility issues: some existing systems and protocols are designed to work with keys of a certain length making it complex and time-consuming to accommodate longer keys.
– Longer keys can be more challenging to distribute securely than shorter keys
– Longer keys don’t necessarily make a system more secure if the encryption algorithm itself is vulnerable to cryptanalysis. The strength of the encryption is not solely determined by key length but also by the quality and security of the encryption algorithm.
Hi Ooreofeoluwa,
Yes i agree with your point. You raised a a valid concern about existing systems and protocols that are designed to work with keys of a certain length. The key takeaway is that security measures should be tailored to the specific needs and constraints of the system in question.
The effectiveness of a session key is directly linked to its bit length as each additional bit doubles the number of keys. With microprocessor speeds doubling every year the computational ability to attempt brute force decryption grows exponentially. After 30 years this ability will have grown by a factor of 230 To maintain protection, against such advancements the length of a symmetric key must also increase to provide an equivalent level of security.
Presently a 100 bit key is considered to be secure. To counterbalance the 30 increase in processing power over the next 30 years it is necessary to add an additional 30 bits to the key length resulting in a 130 bit key. This ensures that the time required for brute forcing the key remains consistent with todays standards regardless of advancements, in processing speed.
!The reply above is for the first question, the response of the question two is;
Encryption serves as a lock, for safeguarding our data. Currently we employ keys (100 300 bits) for security measures and longer keys (over 1024 bits) for enhanced security. As computer processing speeds increase, we will extend the length of these keys to ensure the safety of our data. Typically, we utilize the version, for activities and rely on the longer version when transmitting secure keys securely.
While it’s true that longer symmetric keys provide higher security, there are practical reasons why systems don’t use excessively long keys, such as 1,000 bits. One key factor is computational efficiency. Longer keys require more computational power for both encryption and decryption processes, making them slower and more resource-intensive. This can significantly impact the performance of systems, especially in high-volume applications or devices with limited processing capabilities.
Additionally, longer keys increase the complexity of key management, making it more challenging to securely generate, store, and exchange keys among authorized parties. Moreover, with advancements in computational techniques and algorithms, even moderately long keys, such as 128 or 256 bits, provide a high level of security and are considered practically unbreakable with current technology. Therefore, there’s a balance between security and computational efficiency, and current key lengths strike that balance effectively, providing robust security without sacrificing system performance.
It nicely points out that while stronger encryption is good, it can slow things down and make things more complicated. It tells us that the key lengths we use now are a good middle ground, they’re safe enough without making our devices sluggish or making it too hard to handle the keys.
” Therefore, there’s a balance between security and computational efficiency, and current key lengths strike that balance effectively, providing robust security without sacrificing system performance. “Yes i agree with you.
While longer symmetric keys offer increased security against brute force attacks, there is a practical limit, as keys that are 1000s of bits long can cause many inconveniences for an organization.
– Extremely long keys, like 1,000 bits, require more storage and memory.
-Longer keys can slow down encryption and decryption processes, affecting performance.
-There’s a diminishing return on security as key length increases. Going from a 256-bit key to a 1,000-bit key doesn’t necessarily provide significantly more security, but it does significantly increase the computational overhead
Most systems opt for key lengths that strike a practical balance between security and efficiency, typically ranging from 100 to 300 bits.
Longer keys, such as 1,000 bits, indeed require more storage and memory. This can be a significant inconvenience for organizations, particularly when dealing with a large number of keys.
Longer keys are more difficult to crack because they increase the size of the “key space,” which is the number of combinations an attacker would need to try in a brute-force attack to discover the correct key. However, Longer keys provide a larger security margin, making them resistant to advances in computing power and cryptographic attacks.
System doesn’t use longer symmetric keys. Because of the following reasons:
More processing power and memory are required for longer symmetric keys. It makes sense for a system to have a minimum key length.
Longer symmetric keys require more computational resources to process encryption and decryption.
Significant performance degradation, making systems slower and less efficient.
There is Management Complexity. Managing longer keys becomes more complex. Moreover, storing, transmitting, and securely distributing very long keys can be challenging and introduce more potential points of failure or security vulnerabilities.
There are compatibility issues because some systems and protocols are designed to work with specific key lengths. Therefore, Longer keys may not be compatible with all devices.
While security is to be maintained in digital systems, it is also important to ensure that security controls and measures do not impact the core functionality and performance of the information system hence, applying and implementing key length that is commensurate with the expected functionality.
Due to performance, key management, compatibility, cost, diminishing security returns, and availability concerns, systems typically do not use very long symmetric keys, such as 1000 bits. In key length selection, security and practicality must be balanced. Long passwords come with high costs, which companies do not want to see.
Hi Bo, I agree that achieving a balance between security and practicality is key in key length selection. Systems tend to avoid very long symmetric keys, like 1000 bits, due to performance, key management, compatibility, cost, diminishing security returns, and availability concerns.
Since longer keys are more difficult to crack the reason why systems won’t use longer symmetric keys such as 1000 key bits or longer is because of the inefficiency they will provide to the organization. It will cause more wear and tear on computer systems because of the processing power it would need. That would lead to changing the computers more often which could be costly and to do that with multiple computers in a department. It would be better to keep it at a safe level where it doesn’t wear down the computers but still provides the security the company needs to keep its information safe from attackers. Even if the organization would have high-end computers that have the technology to handle the encryption keys replacing the systems would also be costly because they could break down at any given moment.
Jon,
Good point about longer keys being less efficient. Just to add, they don’t exactly wear out the hardware, but they can slow things down. Plus, sticking to the standard key lengths is usually secure enough without making things more complicated
Keys that are 128 or 256 bits long are already enough strong. Even all the computers in the world working together for a very long time couldn’t break them. If you make the key too long, it can make computers slow because they have to work much harder to lock and unlock the information. Longer keys require more storage space and more data to be transmitted during cryptographic operations, which can be inefficient, especially for systems with limited bandwidth or storage capacity.
Indeed, excessively long encryption keys can lead to reduced computational efficiency and increased resource demands, potentially impacting performance, especially in resource-constrained environments.
You make a valid point about how more storage space is taken when longer keys are used. it’s easy to imagine that by having more keys, it would make the security better but it’s important to recognize that more isn’t always better, Which I think you explained well in your post. That being said, is there actually a limit to what’s considered too many keys? and if there is, what’s the exact number? and is there a general consensus as to what the number of keys should be depending on the level of the company?
On the cover, it seems like a great idea to have an excessively long key, since the longer the key, the harder it is to break through a system. While that is true, there are other issues that arise when you have a key that extremely long. The first is, if the key is too long, it could cause a strain on the processor of the computer which would end up slowing down the performance of the system, which is not beneficial for an organization that is dependent on computer performance efficiency. The next issue is management of the keys. When an organization has a key, its not something that is solely memorized by one or two people, it requires storage to be stored and preserved. If there were numerous keys of excessive amount, it could consume too much storage. The last issue i’ll be mentioning is network performance. Not only would an excessive key affect the processor of the computer, but it could also interfere with the organizations network and affect everyone with slower network speeds.
Information security as a concept of risk management involves applying controls and features according to the level of risk acceptable. This should also be considered in the managerial, technical and administrative controls implemented in information systems.
Longer symmetric keys are generally more difficult to crack due to the increased number of possible combinations. The choice of symmetric key length is a trade-off between security, performance, and practicality. Longer keys provide greater security, but the associated challenges in performance, management, and compatibility often limit their use in everyday systems.
– Systems don’t use longer symmetric keys because of computational requirements and resource costs which impact performance making them slow and inefficient.
– The management of longer keys can be more challenging for secure storage and handling bits, leading to administrative overhead and potential security risks.
– Compatibility issues: some existing systems and protocols are designed to work with keys of a certain length making it complex and time-consuming to accommodate longer keys.
– Longer keys can be more challenging to distribute securely than shorter keys
– Longer keys don’t necessarily make a system more secure if the encryption algorithm itself is vulnerable to cryptanalysis. The strength of the encryption is not solely determined by key length but also by the quality and security of the encryption algorithm.
Hi Ooreofeoluwa,
Yes i agree with your point. You raised a a valid concern about existing systems and protocols that are designed to work with keys of a certain length. The key takeaway is that security measures should be tailored to the specific needs and constraints of the system in question.
The effectiveness of a session key is directly linked to its bit length as each additional bit doubles the number of keys. With microprocessor speeds doubling every year the computational ability to attempt brute force decryption grows exponentially. After 30 years this ability will have grown by a factor of 230 To maintain protection, against such advancements the length of a symmetric key must also increase to provide an equivalent level of security.
Presently a 100 bit key is considered to be secure. To counterbalance the 30 increase in processing power over the next 30 years it is necessary to add an additional 30 bits to the key length resulting in a 130 bit key. This ensures that the time required for brute forcing the key remains consistent with todays standards regardless of advancements, in processing speed.
!The reply above is for the first question, the response of the question two is;
Encryption serves as a lock, for safeguarding our data. Currently we employ keys (100 300 bits) for security measures and longer keys (over 1024 bits) for enhanced security. As computer processing speeds increase, we will extend the length of these keys to ensure the safety of our data. Typically, we utilize the version, for activities and rely on the longer version when transmitting secure keys securely.
I think too long key will bring too high cost, companies should set the key length according to their own requirements.
While it’s true that longer symmetric keys provide higher security, there are practical reasons why systems don’t use excessively long keys, such as 1,000 bits. One key factor is computational efficiency. Longer keys require more computational power for both encryption and decryption processes, making them slower and more resource-intensive. This can significantly impact the performance of systems, especially in high-volume applications or devices with limited processing capabilities.
Additionally, longer keys increase the complexity of key management, making it more challenging to securely generate, store, and exchange keys among authorized parties. Moreover, with advancements in computational techniques and algorithms, even moderately long keys, such as 128 or 256 bits, provide a high level of security and are considered practically unbreakable with current technology. Therefore, there’s a balance between security and computational efficiency, and current key lengths strike that balance effectively, providing robust security without sacrificing system performance.
It nicely points out that while stronger encryption is good, it can slow things down and make things more complicated. It tells us that the key lengths we use now are a good middle ground, they’re safe enough without making our devices sluggish or making it too hard to handle the keys.
” Therefore, there’s a balance between security and computational efficiency, and current key lengths strike that balance effectively, providing robust security without sacrificing system performance. “Yes i agree with you.
While longer symmetric keys offer increased security against brute force attacks, there is a practical limit, as keys that are 1000s of bits long can cause many inconveniences for an organization.
– Extremely long keys, like 1,000 bits, require more storage and memory.
-Longer keys can slow down encryption and decryption processes, affecting performance.
-There’s a diminishing return on security as key length increases. Going from a 256-bit key to a 1,000-bit key doesn’t necessarily provide significantly more security, but it does significantly increase the computational overhead
Most systems opt for key lengths that strike a practical balance between security and efficiency, typically ranging from 100 to 300 bits.
Longer keys, such as 1,000 bits, indeed require more storage and memory. This can be a significant inconvenience for organizations, particularly when dealing with a large number of keys.
Longer keys are more difficult to crack because they increase the size of the “key space,” which is the number of combinations an attacker would need to try in a brute-force attack to discover the correct key. However, Longer keys provide a larger security margin, making them resistant to advances in computing power and cryptographic attacks.
System doesn’t use longer symmetric keys. Because of the following reasons:
More processing power and memory are required for longer symmetric keys. It makes sense for a system to have a minimum key length.
Longer symmetric keys require more computational resources to process encryption and decryption.
Significant performance degradation, making systems slower and less efficient.
There is Management Complexity. Managing longer keys becomes more complex. Moreover, storing, transmitting, and securely distributing very long keys can be challenging and introduce more potential points of failure or security vulnerabilities.
There are compatibility issues because some systems and protocols are designed to work with specific key lengths. Therefore, Longer keys may not be compatible with all devices.
While security is to be maintained in digital systems, it is also important to ensure that security controls and measures do not impact the core functionality and performance of the information system hence, applying and implementing key length that is commensurate with the expected functionality.
Due to performance, key management, compatibility, cost, diminishing security returns, and availability concerns, systems typically do not use very long symmetric keys, such as 1000 bits. In key length selection, security and practicality must be balanced. Long passwords come with high costs, which companies do not want to see.
Hi Bo, I agree that achieving a balance between security and practicality is key in key length selection. Systems tend to avoid very long symmetric keys, like 1000 bits, due to performance, key management, compatibility, cost, diminishing security returns, and availability concerns.
Since longer keys are more difficult to crack the reason why systems won’t use longer symmetric keys such as 1000 key bits or longer is because of the inefficiency they will provide to the organization. It will cause more wear and tear on computer systems because of the processing power it would need. That would lead to changing the computers more often which could be costly and to do that with multiple computers in a department. It would be better to keep it at a safe level where it doesn’t wear down the computers but still provides the security the company needs to keep its information safe from attackers. Even if the organization would have high-end computers that have the technology to handle the encryption keys replacing the systems would also be costly because they could break down at any given moment.
Jon,
Good point about longer keys being less efficient. Just to add, they don’t exactly wear out the hardware, but they can slow things down. Plus, sticking to the standard key lengths is usually secure enough without making things more complicated
Keys that are 128 or 256 bits long are already enough strong. Even all the computers in the world working together for a very long time couldn’t break them. If you make the key too long, it can make computers slow because they have to work much harder to lock and unlock the information. Longer keys require more storage space and more data to be transmitted during cryptographic operations, which can be inefficient, especially for systems with limited bandwidth or storage capacity.
Hi Eyup,
Indeed, excessively long encryption keys can lead to reduced computational efficiency and increased resource demands, potentially impacting performance, especially in resource-constrained environments.
You make a valid point about how more storage space is taken when longer keys are used. it’s easy to imagine that by having more keys, it would make the security better but it’s important to recognize that more isn’t always better, Which I think you explained well in your post. That being said, is there actually a limit to what’s considered too many keys? and if there is, what’s the exact number? and is there a general consensus as to what the number of keys should be depending on the level of the company?
On the cover, it seems like a great idea to have an excessively long key, since the longer the key, the harder it is to break through a system. While that is true, there are other issues that arise when you have a key that extremely long. The first is, if the key is too long, it could cause a strain on the processor of the computer which would end up slowing down the performance of the system, which is not beneficial for an organization that is dependent on computer performance efficiency. The next issue is management of the keys. When an organization has a key, its not something that is solely memorized by one or two people, it requires storage to be stored and preserved. If there were numerous keys of excessive amount, it could consume too much storage. The last issue i’ll be mentioning is network performance. Not only would an excessive key affect the processor of the computer, but it could also interfere with the organizations network and affect everyone with slower network speeds.
Information security as a concept of risk management involves applying controls and features according to the level of risk acceptable. This should also be considered in the managerial, technical and administrative controls implemented in information systems.