Hi! 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... ;-). cu, Sven _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
