- 153comments
- 507comments
- 188comments
- 75comments
- 49comments
- 57comments
- 564comments
- —discuss
- 17comments
- 45comments
- 10comments
- 138comments
- 123comments
- 123comments
- 11comments
- 199comments
- 301comments
- 362comments
- 1comments
- 27comments
- 20comments
- 93comments
- 25comments
- 15comments
- 51comments
- 49comments
- 281comments
- 126comments
- 9comments
- 123comments
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.