1 |
Hello Florian :) |
2 |
|
3 |
Florian Philipp wrote: |
4 |
> I just did some benchmarking on different ciphers for cryptsetup-luks |
5 |
I have not done benchmarks on my own, and cannot say if your method is a |
6 |
good one. What I've read is, that AES(Rijndael)-implementations have |
7 |
been optimized a lot on all platforms. The last test I've read said, |
8 |
that the Linux AES (Rijndael) implementation is fastest (compared with |
9 |
others in its class) at 128 bit, while at 256 bit Blowfish is faster |
10 |
than AES (Rijndael). (This will most certainly differ on other platforms!) |
11 |
|
12 |
> Do you think keysize is more important than choosing a cipher which |
13 |
> made it further in the AES-contest and therefore using Anubis with |
14 |
> 320bit would be a better choice than AES or Twofish with 256bit? |
15 |
> Might it even be an advantage because less people try to brake Anubis |
16 |
> than AES (although it bears some similarity with AES and might be |
17 |
> vulnerable to the same attacks)? |
18 |
From what I've read, it is most important to use a well understood and |
19 |
heavily reviewed algorithm. That also means, that it is good, if lots of |
20 |
people have tried to break it. |
21 |
|
22 |
> And if I need a faster cipher, do you think Blowfish with 64bit keys |
23 |
> is save for the next 3 years? |
24 |
I think you should stick to Rijndael-128 or Blowfish-256 - they are well |
25 |
optimized for your computer, heavily analyzed by crypto-experts and |
26 |
provide both the cryptographic strength against most attackers for the |
27 |
next few years (say the crypto-experts, to whom I do not belong). |
28 |
|
29 |
Bye, |
30 |
Daniel |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
use PGP key @ http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xBB9D4887&op=get |
34 |
# gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0xBB9D4887 |