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?
While a 1,000-bit key would be more secure, it would also be unrealistic in a working environment. Encrypting and decrypting with a long key would take a lot more processing power and slow down performance, especially for real time tasks. Currently, 100 to 300 bit keys provide a good balance that offer strong security without taking up too much processing time. Using keys much longer than needed would just slow things down without adding much extra security.
I agree with your post. While it offers more security it isn’t practical as it just slows things down. This would slow down a lot of day-to-day activities for an employee at an organization.
While increasing the length of a symmetric key strengthens security, it’s a delicate balance between security and performance. A 1,000-bit key would be highly resistant to brute-force attacks, but it would also place significant demand on resources. Encrypting and decrypting data with such a long key would slow down processing times and increase energy consumption, making it impractical for many applications, especially in devices like mobile phones or IoT devices, which have limited power and processing capabilities. Most systems today use keys in the 100-300 bit range because they offer robust security without excessive processing requirements. Going beyond this range often isn’t worth the added computational cost, as existing lengths are effective for current threat levels and real-world applications.
Most symmetric keys today are 100 to 300 bits long. For instance, AES (The Advanced Encryption Standard) is an algorithm that uses a strong password (secret key) to scramble your files and messages, making them unreadable to anyone who doesn’t have the key. It has three main types AES128, AES192 and AES256. AES-128 uses a 128-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 10 rounds of encryption with 3.4 x 1038 different potential combination. AES-192: uses a 192-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 12 rounds of encryption with 6.2 x 1057 different potential combinations. AES-256 uses a 256-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 14 rounds of encryption with 1.1 x 1077 different potential combinations.
It is expected that even the lowest level of AES encryption, AES-128, would take an estimated 1 billion billion years to crack if using a brute force method. What that means is increasing 1000-bit keys; the added security gain is minimal compared to the potential impacts on the system performance. There is already robust security with relatively short key lengths. Longer keys require more processing power, it will require additional resources to manage and maintain a longer key symmetric keys.
I like how you explained how AES encryption works and why key lengths longer than 256 bits aren’t usually needed because there are so many possible combos. Sometimes more isn’t better if it slows down the system, particularly with longer keys. With the rise of quantum computing, do you think we’ll need to look at key lengths again, or do you think new encryption methods will take the lead?
Longer keys are more secure, however require more resources which limit their usage due to the computational costs such as performance and efficiency. This can lead to slow performance, especially for systems that need to process large volumes of data. In theory it would be more secure but would render the device useless to be able to complete daily tasks. Current 100-300 bit keys provide a practical approach by balancing security, performance, and efficiency.
You make a great point about the need to balance key length with computational efficiency to maintain both security and performance. While longer keys enhance encryption, the current 100-300 bit range provides a practical solution, ensuring systems remain functional for daily tasks without excessive slowdown.
While longer symmetric keys are indeed harder to crack, using keys as long as 1,000 bits is generally impractical due to performance constraints. In symmetric encryption, increasing key length significantly raises the processing time and resource demands. Beyond a range of 100 to 300 bits, the increase in security is often outweighed by the impact on system efficiency and speed. With symmetric encryption, there’s a balance between security and usability, and key lengths of 128 or 256 bits are typically considered secure enough even against advanced attacks while still allowing systems to run smoothly.
I agree with your thoughts that very long symmetric keys, like 1,000 bits, are not practical because they can slow down system performance. You’re right that finding a balance between strong security and system efficiency is key. However, it’s also important to consider future threats, like advances in computing power and potential new attack methods, which could make even 256-bit keys less secure over time. Preparing for these future risks might mean exploring newer encryption methods that provide strong security without slowing down performance. How do you think organizations can best balance preparing for future threats while keeping current systems efficient?
Hi James,
You make a great point. I agree that it’s critical for organizations to consider not just current security needs but also future risks, like the impact of advancing computing power on key strength. I think an organization should leverage adaptive encryption techniques that can scale in response to new vulnerabilities by incorporating post-quantum cryptographic algorithms.
1,000 bit keys would be more difficult to crack, however using keys that are 1,000 bits is extremely long and not practical. Larger keys mean more computational overhead, thus requiring more processing power which would slow down performance. Many systems and devices that have limited processing power would struggle with the extra processing load of a 1,000 bit key. Furthermore, keys that range from 100 to 300 bits long are already affective and provide good security while also ensuring efficiency, there just is no need for 1,000 bit keys.
While longer symmetric keys are more difficult to break, they require more processing power, leading to slower performance. These keys increase the demand on system resources, such as memory and CPU. Additionally, many systems and protocols are designed to work with standard key lengths. Using non-standard key lengths could result in compatibility issues, necessitating changes to existing infrastructure.
I want to echo the compatibility part that I missed in my response. I think it’s important to note that many existing systems and hardware are designed to work with the current bit keys. I would assume that utilizing a higher bit key would require updates as it would no longer be compatible with older systems. Great post!
Systems don’t use 1,000-bit symmetric keys because they slow down encryption and decryption processes without providing meaningful security benefits. Key lengths are 100-300 bits, and they are already pretty secure and effectively resistant to brute-force attacks with today’s technology, so longer keys would not provide any extra benefit. It would be unnecessary and not practical.
Neel you are right that using excessively long symmetric keys like 1000 bits would indeed slow down processing without adding significant security benefits. However, if computing power continues to advance, do you think that at some point in the future we would need to extend key lengths beyond today’s standards of 100-300 bits?
Systems don’t use 1,000 bit symmetric keys because the keys used are already extremely secure and hard to crack currently. Longer keys would make encryption slower and require more processing power, which can cause issues, especially on smaller devices. Standards already consider these shorter keys safe enough, so longer ones aren’t really needed.
Hi Andrea – Great response! To add on, I think the character limits for passwords would also reach capacity and limit the user from any additional characters. This would make it difficult to remember the passwords, so there could be many resets to the password.
Your point about character limits is really interesting! I hadn’t considered the possibility of passwords reaching their capacity. It adds a new perspective on how encryption advancements could impact user experience, especially if password length becomes limited. Thanks for sharing this insight!
A combination of diminishing returns and resource cost. If an encryption would take more then 1 million years to break via brute force then there is not much benefit in making it take 1 billion years instead. Plus with modern computing, which needs to encrypt/decrypt millions of files on a regular basis, adding any additional resource cost will cause an exponential knock on effect. Because of both of these reasons encryption should be kept at the bare minimum necessary.
“Although a 1,000-bit symmetric key would be more secure, using long keys makes encryption and decryption more time-consuming and costly. Today, symmetric keys in the 100-300 bit range provide sufficient security without excessive demands on resources. As key length increases, so does the need for processing power and memory, making longer keys impractical for most applications.
Asymmetric encryption methods are known to take longer than symmetric keys to decrypt which can be a positive when trying to defend against brute force attacks. However, it may not be suitable for cases where bulk encryption is at play such as on servers and databases. The use of asymmetric encryption is already a great defense against brute force attacks (AES takes billions of years to crack), lengthening the bits would prove to be unnecessary for everyday applications. It would hinder productivity in high frequency environments such as the payments/banking industry, and the average consumer would not be access information or data in a timely manner.
Systems that truly require the most stringent encryption also focus on securing the keys at rest and in transit. They research and review new and readily-available methods and technologies to keep up their security posture. In high frequency environments, Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) are used to generate, store, and delete encryption keys. These HSMs also perform cryptographic operations and are placed outside the infrastructure where the can only be managed (updated, maintenance) in an indirect way through APIs. This means that the HSM are equipped to handle the lengthy and resource-intensive task of description and encryption. Lastly, HSMs are high tamper-proof, in cases where an HSM has been successfully tampered with it deletes all the keys contained within it.
Asymmetric encryption definitely has its strengths, especially when defending against brute-force attacks, but I agree that it isn’t practical for bulk data encryption, like on servers or databases, due to the processing demands. In high-frequency environments, the need for quick data access makes symmetric encryption more practical. I also like how you highlighted Hardware Security Modules for key management. It’s clear that combining encryption with secure key management practices like HSMs is key to maintaining both security and efficiency.
Honestly I think that this is probably the clearest example of the cost benefit analysis we have to make as Security professionals. We need to be able to balance the needs of the business needing to do rapid transactions with the security risk of not having a high enough level of encryption.
This is a scenario in which an organization would have to accept the risk of using less stringent security controls to enable businesses and operations. However, depending on the industries an organization may conduct business in, it may face regulatory requirements to implement expensive security mechanisms.
It is true that longer symmetric keys are harder to crack, but they also need a lot more computer power to secure and decode, which can slow down the system. When speed is important, like communicating in real time or sending large amounts of data, symmetric encryption techniques are used. This means that a key that is too long could cause visible delays and lower efficiency. likewise, present key lengths (usually 100 to 300 bits) are enough for security with the processing power we have now. Increasing key lengths only makes sense if the extra security benefits outweigh the speed costs. Key length strikes a mix between speed and protection. As technology improves, it may become possible to make keys that are longer. Optimized algorithms or novel cryptographic approaches may be created to give security without enormous key lengths that strain present systems.
Hi Tache
I agree with you on “Increasing key lengths only makes sense if the extra security benefits outweigh the speed costs” considering the fact that It is expected that even the lowest level of AES encryption, AES-128, would take an estimated 1 billion billion years to crack if using a brute force method.
Symmetric keys today are 100 to 300 bits long and are effective at preventing hacking via brute force. As stated in question 1, adding one bit significantly increases difficulty. It does raise a good question, why not make symmetric keys 1000 bits. I think that it is because 100-300 bits takes a nice amount of processing power, 1000 bits would be extreme and unnecessary as 100-300 has been effective.
While a 1,000-bit key would be more secure, it would also be unrealistic in a working environment. Encrypting and decrypting with a long key would take a lot more processing power and slow down performance, especially for real time tasks. Currently, 100 to 300 bit keys provide a good balance that offer strong security without taking up too much processing time. Using keys much longer than needed would just slow things down without adding much extra security.
I agree with your post. While it offers more security it isn’t practical as it just slows things down. This would slow down a lot of day-to-day activities for an employee at an organization.
While increasing the length of a symmetric key strengthens security, it’s a delicate balance between security and performance. A 1,000-bit key would be highly resistant to brute-force attacks, but it would also place significant demand on resources. Encrypting and decrypting data with such a long key would slow down processing times and increase energy consumption, making it impractical for many applications, especially in devices like mobile phones or IoT devices, which have limited power and processing capabilities. Most systems today use keys in the 100-300 bit range because they offer robust security without excessive processing requirements. Going beyond this range often isn’t worth the added computational cost, as existing lengths are effective for current threat levels and real-world applications.
Most symmetric keys today are 100 to 300 bits long. For instance, AES (The Advanced Encryption Standard) is an algorithm that uses a strong password (secret key) to scramble your files and messages, making them unreadable to anyone who doesn’t have the key. It has three main types AES128, AES192 and AES256. AES-128 uses a 128-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 10 rounds of encryption with 3.4 x 1038 different potential combination. AES-192: uses a 192-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 12 rounds of encryption with 6.2 x 1057 different potential combinations. AES-256 uses a 256-bit key length for encryption and decryption, which results in 14 rounds of encryption with 1.1 x 1077 different potential combinations.
It is expected that even the lowest level of AES encryption, AES-128, would take an estimated 1 billion billion years to crack if using a brute force method. What that means is increasing 1000-bit keys; the added security gain is minimal compared to the potential impacts on the system performance. There is already robust security with relatively short key lengths. Longer keys require more processing power, it will require additional resources to manage and maintain a longer key symmetric keys.
I like how you explained how AES encryption works and why key lengths longer than 256 bits aren’t usually needed because there are so many possible combos. Sometimes more isn’t better if it slows down the system, particularly with longer keys. With the rise of quantum computing, do you think we’ll need to look at key lengths again, or do you think new encryption methods will take the lead?
Longer keys are more secure, however require more resources which limit their usage due to the computational costs such as performance and efficiency. This can lead to slow performance, especially for systems that need to process large volumes of data. In theory it would be more secure but would render the device useless to be able to complete daily tasks. Current 100-300 bit keys provide a practical approach by balancing security, performance, and efficiency.
You make a great point about the need to balance key length with computational efficiency to maintain both security and performance. While longer keys enhance encryption, the current 100-300 bit range provides a practical solution, ensuring systems remain functional for daily tasks without excessive slowdown.
While longer symmetric keys are indeed harder to crack, using keys as long as 1,000 bits is generally impractical due to performance constraints. In symmetric encryption, increasing key length significantly raises the processing time and resource demands. Beyond a range of 100 to 300 bits, the increase in security is often outweighed by the impact on system efficiency and speed. With symmetric encryption, there’s a balance between security and usability, and key lengths of 128 or 256 bits are typically considered secure enough even against advanced attacks while still allowing systems to run smoothly.
Hi Cyrena,
I agree with your thoughts that very long symmetric keys, like 1,000 bits, are not practical because they can slow down system performance. You’re right that finding a balance between strong security and system efficiency is key. However, it’s also important to consider future threats, like advances in computing power and potential new attack methods, which could make even 256-bit keys less secure over time. Preparing for these future risks might mean exploring newer encryption methods that provide strong security without slowing down performance. How do you think organizations can best balance preparing for future threats while keeping current systems efficient?
Hi James,
You make a great point. I agree that it’s critical for organizations to consider not just current security needs but also future risks, like the impact of advancing computing power on key strength. I think an organization should leverage adaptive encryption techniques that can scale in response to new vulnerabilities by incorporating post-quantum cryptographic algorithms.
1,000 bit keys would be more difficult to crack, however using keys that are 1,000 bits is extremely long and not practical. Larger keys mean more computational overhead, thus requiring more processing power which would slow down performance. Many systems and devices that have limited processing power would struggle with the extra processing load of a 1,000 bit key. Furthermore, keys that range from 100 to 300 bits long are already affective and provide good security while also ensuring efficiency, there just is no need for 1,000 bit keys.
While longer symmetric keys are more difficult to break, they require more processing power, leading to slower performance. These keys increase the demand on system resources, such as memory and CPU. Additionally, many systems and protocols are designed to work with standard key lengths. Using non-standard key lengths could result in compatibility issues, necessitating changes to existing infrastructure.
Hi Brittany,
I want to echo the compatibility part that I missed in my response. I think it’s important to note that many existing systems and hardware are designed to work with the current bit keys. I would assume that utilizing a higher bit key would require updates as it would no longer be compatible with older systems. Great post!
Systems don’t use 1,000-bit symmetric keys because they slow down encryption and decryption processes without providing meaningful security benefits. Key lengths are 100-300 bits, and they are already pretty secure and effectively resistant to brute-force attacks with today’s technology, so longer keys would not provide any extra benefit. It would be unnecessary and not practical.
Neel you are right that using excessively long symmetric keys like 1000 bits would indeed slow down processing without adding significant security benefits. However, if computing power continues to advance, do you think that at some point in the future we would need to extend key lengths beyond today’s standards of 100-300 bits?
Systems don’t use 1,000 bit symmetric keys because the keys used are already extremely secure and hard to crack currently. Longer keys would make encryption slower and require more processing power, which can cause issues, especially on smaller devices. Standards already consider these shorter keys safe enough, so longer ones aren’t really needed.
Hi Andrea – Great response! To add on, I think the character limits for passwords would also reach capacity and limit the user from any additional characters. This would make it difficult to remember the passwords, so there could be many resets to the password.
Hi Neel,
Your point about character limits is really interesting! I hadn’t considered the possibility of passwords reaching their capacity. It adds a new perspective on how encryption advancements could impact user experience, especially if password length becomes limited. Thanks for sharing this insight!
A combination of diminishing returns and resource cost. If an encryption would take more then 1 million years to break via brute force then there is not much benefit in making it take 1 billion years instead. Plus with modern computing, which needs to encrypt/decrypt millions of files on a regular basis, adding any additional resource cost will cause an exponential knock on effect. Because of both of these reasons encryption should be kept at the bare minimum necessary.
“Although a 1,000-bit symmetric key would be more secure, using long keys makes encryption and decryption more time-consuming and costly. Today, symmetric keys in the 100-300 bit range provide sufficient security without excessive demands on resources. As key length increases, so does the need for processing power and memory, making longer keys impractical for most applications.
Asymmetric encryption methods are known to take longer than symmetric keys to decrypt which can be a positive when trying to defend against brute force attacks. However, it may not be suitable for cases where bulk encryption is at play such as on servers and databases. The use of asymmetric encryption is already a great defense against brute force attacks (AES takes billions of years to crack), lengthening the bits would prove to be unnecessary for everyday applications. It would hinder productivity in high frequency environments such as the payments/banking industry, and the average consumer would not be access information or data in a timely manner.
Systems that truly require the most stringent encryption also focus on securing the keys at rest and in transit. They research and review new and readily-available methods and technologies to keep up their security posture. In high frequency environments, Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) are used to generate, store, and delete encryption keys. These HSMs also perform cryptographic operations and are placed outside the infrastructure where the can only be managed (updated, maintenance) in an indirect way through APIs. This means that the HSM are equipped to handle the lengthy and resource-intensive task of description and encryption. Lastly, HSMs are high tamper-proof, in cases where an HSM has been successfully tampered with it deletes all the keys contained within it.
Asymmetric encryption definitely has its strengths, especially when defending against brute-force attacks, but I agree that it isn’t practical for bulk data encryption, like on servers or databases, due to the processing demands. In high-frequency environments, the need for quick data access makes symmetric encryption more practical. I also like how you highlighted Hardware Security Modules for key management. It’s clear that combining encryption with secure key management practices like HSMs is key to maintaining both security and efficiency.
Honestly I think that this is probably the clearest example of the cost benefit analysis we have to make as Security professionals. We need to be able to balance the needs of the business needing to do rapid transactions with the security risk of not having a high enough level of encryption.
Thank you Ben for your comment,
This is a scenario in which an organization would have to accept the risk of using less stringent security controls to enable businesses and operations. However, depending on the industries an organization may conduct business in, it may face regulatory requirements to implement expensive security mechanisms.
It is true that longer symmetric keys are harder to crack, but they also need a lot more computer power to secure and decode, which can slow down the system. When speed is important, like communicating in real time or sending large amounts of data, symmetric encryption techniques are used. This means that a key that is too long could cause visible delays and lower efficiency. likewise, present key lengths (usually 100 to 300 bits) are enough for security with the processing power we have now. Increasing key lengths only makes sense if the extra security benefits outweigh the speed costs. Key length strikes a mix between speed and protection. As technology improves, it may become possible to make keys that are longer. Optimized algorithms or novel cryptographic approaches may be created to give security without enormous key lengths that strain present systems.
Hi Tache
I agree with you on “Increasing key lengths only makes sense if the extra security benefits outweigh the speed costs” considering the fact that It is expected that even the lowest level of AES encryption, AES-128, would take an estimated 1 billion billion years to crack if using a brute force method.
Symmetric keys today are 100 to 300 bits long and are effective at preventing hacking via brute force. As stated in question 1, adding one bit significantly increases difficulty. It does raise a good question, why not make symmetric keys 1000 bits. I think that it is because 100-300 bits takes a nice amount of processing power, 1000 bits would be extreme and unnecessary as 100-300 has been effective.