- 94comments
- 58comments
- 47comments
- 65comments
- 412comments
- 36comments
- 4comments
- 48comments
- 281comments
- 17comments
- 38comments
- 15comments
- 328comments
- 78comments
- 32comments
- 87comments
- 5comments
- 2comments
- 104comments
- 3comments
- 265comments
- 88comments
- 70comments
- 2comments
- 223comments
- —discuss
- 13comments
- 66comments
- 100comments
- 19comments
Wouldn't it be better to feed the RSA public key into an existing message encryption system like gpg? There are a few things you could improve that way:
* No message integrity - it would be good to be able to sign and encrypt.
* Encrypting the same plaintext twice gives the same ciphertext (there is no randomness). This means that an attacker can confirm if a given ciphertext corresponds to a suspected plaintext.
* RSA is comparatively slow; it is usually better to encrypt a symmetric key with RSA and then encrypt the message with the symmetric key.
Sure. This is intended as a quick way to send small bits of sensitive information over email, chat, etc.