Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/48206505002020864
4 edited tags
| link
3 added 166 characters in body; deleted 16 characters in body
source | link

I'm creating an SSL cert for my IIS server and need to know when I should choose the Microsoft RSA SChannel Cryptographic Provider or the Microsoft DH SChannel Cryptographic Provider.

Question 1 Why would someone still need (what I assume is) a legacy certificate of 'DH'?

Given that the default is RSA/1024, I'm assuming that is the most secure choice, and the other one is for legacy reasons. Why would one still need this legacy certificate? 

I know the different bit levels influence the time needed to secure an SSL session and that is important for low powered devices. IsQuestion 2 Is there any guide to determine what bit level is appropriate for x device? I'd

I'd be interested in either lab results, a math formula, or your personal experience. I know the different bit levels influence the time needed to secure an SSL session and that is important for low powered devices.

Question 3 How would bit-strength affect these scenarios?

My particular case involves these scenarioscommunication patterns:

1) A website that has powerful clients connecting and disconnecting the session frequently

2) A WCF website that sustains long durations of high IO data transfers

3) A client facing website geared for iPhones, and Desktops

  1. A website that has powerful clients connecting and disconnecting the session frequently

  2. A WCF website that sustains long durations of high IO data transfers

  3. A client facing website geared for iPhones, and Desktops

I'm creating an SSL cert for my IIS server and need to know when I should choose the Microsoft RSA SChannel Cryptographic Provider or the Microsoft DH SChannel Cryptographic Provider.

Given that the default is RSA/1024, I'm assuming that is the most secure choice, and the other one is for legacy reasons. Why would one still need this legacy certificate?

I know the different bit levels influence the time needed to secure an SSL session and that is important for low powered devices. Is there any guide to determine what bit level is appropriate for x device? I'd be interested in either lab results, a math formula, or your personal experience.

My particular case involves these scenarios:

1) A website that has powerful clients connecting and disconnecting the session frequently

2) A WCF website that sustains long durations of high IO data transfers

3) A client facing website geared for iPhones, and Desktops

I'm creating an SSL cert for my IIS server and need to know when I should choose the Microsoft RSA SChannel Cryptographic Provider or the Microsoft DH SChannel Cryptographic Provider.

Question 1 Why would someone still need (what I assume is) a legacy certificate of 'DH'?

Given that the default is RSA/1024, I'm assuming that is the most secure choice, and the other one is for legacy reasons.  

Question 2 Is there any guide to determine what bit level is appropriate for x device?

I'd be interested in either lab results, a math formula, or your personal experience. I know the different bit levels influence the time needed to secure an SSL session and that is important for low powered devices.

Question 3 How would bit-strength affect these scenarios?

My particular case involves these communication patterns:

  1. A website that has powerful clients connecting and disconnecting the session frequently

  2. A WCF website that sustains long durations of high IO data transfers

  3. A client facing website geared for iPhones, and Desktops

2 edited tags
| link
1
source | link