On 9/24/10 4:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > My conclusion from the above data points is that if we're concerned > about computational inefficiencies, 4096-bit RSA keys are not > particularly bad offenders. > > Are there other interpretations of the above results? does anyone else > want to post comparable data points on different hardware? How powerful > is a typical smartphone anyway? What kind of a cutoff are people > willing to accept in terms of CPU cycles per signature validated? or am > i measuring the wrong thing entirely? >
I can test on a Motorola i1 (Boost' droid) with APG, but I'll only be able to do a stopwatch test. As far as I'm concerned, under one sec is good. I believe you've got a 4096 bit key that uses a serious hash. Would you mind posting a test clearsigned message so that we're all using the same document to test against? -- Grant "I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war." _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
