AES Key Size Comparison Calculator
Compare AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256 key sizes by total combinations, brute-force resistance, and estimated crack times.
Determine equivalent security strength for RSA key sizes. RSA-2048 equals 112-bit, 3072 equals 128-bit, 4096 equals 152-bit security.
| RSA Bits | Security | AES Eq. | ECC Eq. | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,024 | 80-bit | AES-80 | ECC-160 | Deprecated |
| 2,048 | 112-bit | AES-112 | ECC-224 | Acceptable (until ~2030) |
| 3,072 | 128-bit | AES-128 | ECC-256 | Recommended |
| 4,096 | 152-bit | AES-152 | ECC-305 | High Security |
| 7,680 | 192-bit | AES-192 | ECC-384 | Very High Security |
| 15,360 | 256-bit | AES-256 | ECC-521 | Maximum |
RSA key size directly determines the security level of RSA encryption and digital signatures. However, RSA key bits do not map one-to-one with security bits โ RSA-2048 provides only about 112 bits of security, not 2048. This is because RSA can be attacked more efficiently than brute force using number field sieve algorithms for factoring large numbers.
This calculator shows the equivalent security strength in bits for any RSA key size, along with the corresponding AES and ECC key sizes that provide equal protection. It helps certificate administrators, security architects, and developers choose appropriate RSA key sizes and plan migrations to stronger keys or alternative algorithms like ECC.
RSA key size recommendations evolve as computing power and cryptanalysis improve. Understanding the actual security level helps you avoid both under-provisioning (RSA-1024 is broken) and over-provisioning (RSA-8192 is extremely slow). It gives the concrete numbers needed for certificate planning, migration work, and security reviews.
Approximate RSA security bits using GNFS: security โ 1.923 ร (key_bits)^(1/3) ร (ln(key_bits))^(2/3) โ 4.69 (simplified NIST mapping). RSA-1024โ80-bit, RSA-2048โ112-bit, RSA-3072โ128-bit, RSA-4096โ152-bit, RSA-7680โ192-bit, RSA-15360โ256-bit.Result: 112-bit security | AES-112 | ECC-224
RSA-2048 provides approximately 112 bits of security. It remains a common deployment baseline, while longer-lived use cases often move to RSA-3072 (128-bit security). The equivalent ECC key size is P-224, though P-256 is the more common practical minimum in modern deployments.
The security of RSA depends on the difficulty of factoring large numbers using the General Number Field Sieve (GNFS). NIST publishes recommended key sizes based on projected advances in both algorithmic techniques and hardware capabilities.
RSA-1024 is deprecated because it provides only about 80-bit security. RSA-2048 remains the most common deployment baseline and provides roughly 112-bit security. Teams planning for longer-lived keys often move to RSA-3072 (128-bit) or higher.
RSA operations are computationally expensive. Encryption and signature verification are relatively fast (public key operations), but decryption and signing (private key operations) scale roughly with the cube of the key size. RSA-4096 private key operations are approximately 8ร slower than RSA-2048.
ECC P-256 provides 128-bit security with 256-bit keys, matching RSA-3072 while being 10โ20ร faster for signing operations. Most modern TLS implementations prefer ECC certificates, and mainstream browsers and servers have supported ECDSA for years.
Last updated:
RSA-2048 remains acceptable in many environments and is commonly treated as the lower end of modern deployment baselines. For long-lived keys or highly sensitive data, many teams prefer RSA-3072 or higher. If large-scale quantum computers become practical, RSA of any size would be broken.
RSA can be attacked using the General Number Field Sieve (GNFS) algorithm, which is much faster than brute force. GNFS has sub-exponential complexity, meaning each doubling of key size adds less than a doubling of security. This is fundamentally different from symmetric algorithms like AES.
For shorter-lived certificates, RSA-2048 is often acceptable. For longer validity periods, many teams use RSA-3072 or RSA-4096. Better yet, consider ECC P-256 or P-384 certificates, which provide equal or better security with dramatically better performance.
RSA-2048 generation takes about 0.1โ0.5 seconds. RSA-4096 takes 1โ5 seconds. RSA-8192 can take 30โ60 seconds or more depending on the hardware. This is a one-time cost but significant for applications generating many keys.
Yes, Shor's algorithm on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer can factor RSA keys of any size in polynomial time. Organizations with long-lived trust anchors should already be planning for eventual post-quantum migration.
RSA-8192 is rarely justified. It provides approximately 200-bit security but is extremely slow for key generation and operations. AES-256 or ECC-384 provide comparable or better security with vastly better performance. Use RSA-4096 as the practical maximum if RSA is required.
Compare AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256 key sizes by total combinations, brute-force resistance, and estimated crack times.
Measure encryption performance overhead as a percentage. Compare encrypted vs plaintext throughput for AES, ChaCha20, and disk encryption.
Estimate crack time for password hashes based on hash algorithm and hardware hash rate. Compare MD5, SHA-256, bcrypt, and Argon2 speeds.