Questions about generating keys
sven at radde.name
Thu Aug 23 12:39:19 CEST 2007
Robert J. Hansen schrieb:
>> Ok, so RSA isn't always significantly faster, as I thought it was. I
>> had read somewhere that it was, (probably on this list) and my own
>> testing with my 4GB backup files showed RSA to be notably faster.
I second Robert here. With 4GB of data, the hashing / symmetric
encryption takes so long that it is almost totally irrelevant whether
you use RSA/DSA/ElGamal. The amount of time for the asymmetric
encryption/signing is constant and does not depend on the size of the data.
About the only scenario where you would be seriously concerned with
asymmetric processing time would be a rapid exchange of very small data
packets such as in an instant-messaging session. However, reducing
keysize is far more effective here than changing algorithms (according
to my experiences with Miranda's GnuPG plugin).
>> - RSA has a hash firewall
> Yes, but I am unconvinced that this is something an average user needs
> to be concerned about. (I'm concerned about it, but I freely admit to
> being paranoid.)
I am paranoid, too. Could someone therefore please explain to me what a
hash firewall actually is (possibly off-list)?
I don't seem to get much info from Google (only hash values from
firewall applications... ;-).
More information about the Gnupg-users