On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > None of the mobile phones I tried had no trouble using RSA 4096 to > encrypt or decrypt a 16 byte key. If the phone has a JVM and/or a web > browser, RSA 4096 and AES should be no problem.
I did a quick benchmark: $ tests/benchmark rsa Algorithm generate 100*sign 100*verify ---------------------------------------------- RSA 1024 bit 150ms 830ms 30ms RSA 2048 bit 2140ms 4310ms 80ms RSA 3072 bit 5470ms 12430ms 160ms RSA 4096 bit 14350ms 28420ms 270ms This is raw signing of a random number 8 bits shorter than the modulus using a public exponent of 65537. The numbers indeed show that verificaion is only by a factor of 3 slower for a 4k key compared to 2k key. Thus, this proves your statement. The sign operation is of course far slower: A single sign operation takes 0.28 seconds on my 1500Mhz Pentium M. Given that this is the same time as for a decrypt operation, this will be noticable if you receive a mail encrypted to several hidden keys (--throw-keyid) and you need to do trial decryptions. FWIW, here are the figures for other algorithms: $ tests/benchmark dsa Algorithm generate 100*sign 100*verify ---------------------------------------------- DSA 1024/160 - 910ms 440ms DSA 2048/224 - 1570ms 1900ms DSA 3072/256 - 3630ms 4400ms $ tests/benchmark ecc Algorithm generate 100*sign 100*verify ---------------------------------------------- ECDSA 192 bit 60ms 1530ms 1170ms ECDSA 224 bit 30ms 760ms 1380ms ECDSA 256 bit 40ms 960ms 1800ms ECDSA 384 bit 90ms 2150ms 4210ms ECDSA 521 bit 210ms 5430ms 10510ms (ECC is still experimental in Libgcrypt and not much opmitized) Shalom-Salam, Werner _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
