RSA

desu it's worse and your friend is a massive brainlet

Friend he mentioned here btw.

I was referring to AES and using RSA keys with a length below 1024 is stupid anyways...

First define what you mean by "better".

more secure would be the best word to describe

Best not to be involved in anything needing secrets. If it can't be shared, it's not good.

>>8592606
Less "insecure" is accurate, reasonably speaking..

>>8592619
Why?The most things, which you should not share are good

>>8592291
clearly bullshit, both are the same security, the only difference is that 256 bit is less susceptible to collisions. Obviously. The more bits the more unique outputs to cover all the possible inputs... Also harder (bigger) to pre-compute and store in pre-computer tables...

File: 1455310679806.png (287KB, 836x1065px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 836x1065px

>>8592291

Your friend is a cs major so you should discard everything he says. They don't know anything, even about their own field.

Are you mad? But nice pic ;D

>>8592722
AES with 256 bit keysize is more vulnerable to related key attacks than AES with lower key sizes, which reduces its computational complexity below AES-128 levels and makes bruteforcing way easier. It still isn't practical though I admit.

>>8594084
This shit doesn't work with full AES, my dude.

>>8592729
found the newfag

>>8594085
It does. Success of this depends on the way it is being implemented since a proper implementation will prevent related keys.

>>8594086
Do not blame me