AES256 vs Twofish performance (Was: twofish keysize)
malte.gell at gmx.de
Thu Apr 22 11:53:34 CEST 2004
Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2004 09:01 schrieb Per Tunedal Casual:
> I was more concerned about encryption. What about the performance
> AES-256 compared to TWOFISH for very large files with GPG? AES makes
> more rounds for larger keys, TWOFISH does the same number of rounds
> for all key lengths. That might make TWOFISH attractive for large
AES-256 has 14, Twofish(256) has 16 rounds. BTW, there's some nice
Information about AES at Wikipedia
Just made a quick "real-worl-test", test.tar has about 55 MB and is a
tar'ed /home directory on a Linux box with different types of data.
Actually Twofish was really slightly faster, this is interesting since
Rijndael's believed speed was one of NISTS's major reasons why it
became AES and 2Fish-256 has more rounds.
time echo test | gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --cipher-algo aes256 --symmetric
time echo test |gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --cipher-algo twofish --symmetric
It shows the difference is negligible and AES/Rijndael doesn't seem to
be the top performer it is sometimes said to be, at least with large
files. I think I may later make a test with a 1000 MB tar-file to see
what happens with really large files.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040422/4da58e30/attachment.bin
More information about the Gnupg-users