encryption algorithm

[Matt D]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/17/2013 12:02 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Why would anyone choose AES-128 instead of something more secure,
>> say AES-256?
> 
> "More secure" is sort of ... missing the point.  It's sort of like 
> arguing over whether King Kong or Godzilla is better at urban 
> destruction.  We choose between ciphers principally based on
> features other than some nebulous concept of 'security', at which
> we can say that all the ciphers are more or less equally secure.

(Definitely Godzilla) But why do people tell me that DH, DSA, and RSA
under 2048 are unacceptable?
> 
> Insofar as why one might be chosen over another, a big reason is 
> regulatory compliance.  For instance, a business might be
> constrained by laws or regulations that require 128-bit crypto.
> Some regulations may require national standards to be used; in this
> case, a Japanese business may be required to use Camellia, while a
> U.S. business would be required to use AES or 3DES.
> 
> The other big reason to prefer one over another is comfort.  I've 
> audited GnuPG's 3DES code and I'm satisfied that it's correct; I
> haven't audited the other algorithms.  That means I feel more
> comfortable using 3DES.
> 
How can I find whats on my list?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: MacGPG2 - http://www.gpgtools.org/macgpg2.html
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSsIzHAAoJECrdp7MWSIVb4z8H/3rsJx28X0LfAeRmMXo2yoce
48HnFEzs/jZ/aXT+yuBr73Ri81MCGtGvW0M0DNzWAwY5GRHiP6FiXbYBfMHovVVY
hoFwq20MAEkkHRDx34pkrPMqiQj2m6hR/ayJ+bkIMZquYS3z6gnbJYpp1NS5Uwi0
PI81Q7gWzi4xTv/NFluCLfry7Gc6TGXop71L6RROqhkSG1MJ4c1Aev3D7cW7h0Ke
r8WGlD9NDa9lZUSotKgQveIwFvwsMYmpeqWeP4/m5Xb+GReuVsy7ugirOMz4xmTA
FoMSx63YyH5JLii/+z/Afn/iTXgXNRP3pIfqak2DseM0eDR1rh1dJFkR9xBJex0=
=9656
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----