Thanks. I get the point - for me, any minimal encryption would be enough, as nobody cares about my photos of my famely.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Kevin Kammer <mephi...@fastmail.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:01:09AM -0500 > Also sprach David Shaw: >> AES256 is probably the best all-round choice in GPG if you want to >> just say "strongest" and leave it at that > > AES 192 or AES 128 may actually be a more secure choice than AES 256, > until they work out the following: > > http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html#8 > > That having been said, unless a major corporation or intelligence agency > is interested in your data, the relative "strength" of one of these > ciphers over another are mostly academic. Almost nobody would bother > trying to use sophisticated cryptanalytic attacks, because there are so > many avenues of attack that are much easier, cheaper, and still very > effective. > > E.G. is your computer physically guarded 24/7? If not, how do you know > someone hasn't put a keylogger on it? Hey--it's easier than a related- > key attack with 2^117 complexity. > > -Kevin > > -- > "Le hasard favorise l'esprit préparé." > --Louis Pasteur > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
