Score:1

Why do we use asymmetric key cryptography to then just generate a symmetric key to use?

I'm learning about public key cryptography (asymmetric key cryptography), but from what I've gathered, we basically use public key crypto to just move directly onto private key cryptography (symmetric key cryptography).

Why not just always use asymmetric? (Note: I'm a software developer but not a cryptography expert. I'm just learning and find it fascinating. Thank you)

kelalaka avatar
in flag
Does this answer your question? [Why is asymmetric cryptography bad for huge data?](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/5782/why-is-asymmetric-cryptography-bad-for-huge-data) also [Why is hybrid encryption more effective than other encryption scheme?](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/q/31234/18298)
Evan Su avatar
be flag
Asymmetric encryption is slow, so it's common to use asymmetric encryption to pass a symmetric encryption key to the other party and use something fast like AES to transfer data securely.
Georgy Firsov avatar
cn flag
Asymmetric algorithms require longer keys (but this problem is partially eliminated by ECC), they operate slower than symmetric ones, they potentially produce bigger ciphertexts (if we talk about ciphers)
Maarten Bodewes avatar
in flag
I don't like the term "private key cryptography" myself. If you'd use symmetric cryptography and you have more then one party, then the key cannot be kept private (to one party), but it does need to remain secret. So "secret key cryptography" seems more appropriate.
mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.