faramir.cl at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 00:43:54 CET 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
El 14-12-2010 15:23, David Shaw escribió:
> There is a weak safety factor argument, too. If it turns out that (for example) AES-256 isn't as strong as expected, it may well be that AES-256 is actually a good match to RSA-2048, and you were wise to use it instead of AES-128 (which given the same imaginary attack would be weaker than RSA-2048). You sort of need a crystal ball to make that argument though...
I wish I had read that message before writing my last reply XD
I know I asked before, but I can't remember if I saw an answer. Is
TwoFish implementation the 256 bit key version?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users