The article states that SSL encrypted with a 1024 bit RSA key is computationally inexpensive, taking less than 1% of the CPU time on his current web servers. This is correct, however, 1024 bit RSA is no longer considered secure enough. It can be brute forced by modern computing systems.<p>In fact, the NIST has recommended that all SSL systems be upgraded to 2048 bit keys by January 1st, 2011. This recommendation will have "teeth" for financial institutions that must comply with PCI guidelines, and healthcare that must comply with HIPPA, ARRA, and HITECH regulations.<p>The problem is that encryption with larger key sizes is computationally much more than 2x expensive. In fact, compute costs are based on a cube of key size, meaning encryption using a 2048 bit private key can be as much as 30x more expensive than 1024 bit.<p>I agree that website operators should encrypt everywhere, however, encryption with weak keys might be almost as bad as no encryption in the near future, by giving people a false sense of security.<p>If you are running a serious volume website, you pretty much need SSL accelerators to handle the volume of traffic with 2048 bit encryption. 1-2% CPU load on your web servers can be managed, but 30-60% cannot.
There are some server-side implementation notes here, focused on Apache: <a href="http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2010/07/10/overclocking-mod_ssl/" rel="nofollow">http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2010/07/10/overclock...</a><p><a href="http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/09/05/blacklisting.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/09/05/blacklisting.html</a> is also interesting; it says Chrome will use a blacklist to avoid using False Start on some domains.<p>Also, does anyone know which older clients require that the server cache the session information? The article doesn't say.
Does the extra 1K added by OSCP stapling put enough pressure to make your payload too big for the initial TCP window? It seems like it is impossible to use a 2048 bit key, include an intermediate certificate and turn on OSCP stapling while staying under 4k.
Interesting article, lead me on a bit of a side tangent to my usual monday morning.<p>Based on people saying that 1024 bit RSA is no longer considered secure. I hunted down what I believe is at least one source from nist.gov.<p><a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=903633" rel="nofollow">http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id...</a><p>With the default having to be increased in less than a few months, I was a little surprised to see that google, having recently trumpeted about their "encrypted" search is using 1024bits.<p><a href="https://encrypted.google.com/" rel="nofollow">https://encrypted.google.com/</a><p>If you check their certificates you will see it is 1024bit.<p>I was hoping to compare it to <a href="https://duckduckgo.com" rel="nofollow">https://duckduckgo.com</a>, yet it turns out they too are running 1024bits.<p>I hasten to add, I dont really understand the significance of different ciphers used etc, this is purely based on bits.