It appears they are both encryption algorithms that require public and private keys. Why would I pick one versus the other to provide encryption in my client server application?
+1
A:
From Linux groups ; )
DSA is faster in signing, but slower in verifying. A DSA key of the same strength as RSA (1024 bits) generates a smaller signature. An RSA 512 bit key has been cracked, but only a 280 DSA key.
And see "What is better for GPG keys - RSA or DSA?" @ SuperUser : )
Hope it helps you
SDReyes
2010-05-15 17:45:19
So does that mean if the amount of data to encrypt is large it will run faster using RSA?
WilliamKF
2010-05-15 17:47:54
No, the other way around. DSA is faster in signing (which is mathematically more or less equal to encrypting), so if you have to encrypt a lot and decrypt often, DSA is faster.
Henri
2010-05-15 18:06:27
Lots of data to encrypt at the client side but it is only decrypted once at the server, so does DSA still win?
WilliamKF
2010-05-15 18:24:14
DSA does not encrypt. Repeat, DSA does not encrypt. Here's a quiz: What does the "S" in DSA mean?
GregS
2010-05-16 15:12:45
+1
A:
I think there's some good info here: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/which-is-better-rsa-or-dsa-public-key-12593/
But maybe you've already seen it (first result of google for searching "dsa rsa" :)) but it's still good.
Auxiliary
2010-05-15 17:45:58
+2
A:
Btw, you cannot encrypt with DSA, only sign. Although they are mathematically equivalent (more or less) you cannot use DSA in practice as an encryption scheme, only as a digital signature scheme.
Henri
2010-05-15 18:09:05