On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Ace wrote:
> Thanks Victor! Yes the performance is critical. Another thing is, I just
> checked the PKI handshakes with RC4 and was amazed to see the 75% of gain in
> performance. Am I loosing something more than DH parameters in handshakes
> when going wi
Thanks Victor! Yes the performance is critical. Another thing is, I just
checked the PKI handshakes with RC4 and was amazed to see the 75% of gain in
performance. Am I loosing something more than DH parameters in handshakes
when going with RC4?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Victor Duchovni <
[EM
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:28PM -0700, Ace wrote:
> PKI Handshakes are always the cause of worry when it comes to performance
> but now I am facing problems even with the normal encryption. The data size
> is around 2k. Woud you suggest using RC4-MD5?
I never suggest optimizing something, unti
Hi Victor,
PKI Handshakes are always the cause of worry when it comes to performance
but now I am facing problems even with the normal encryption. The data size
is around 2k. Woud you suggest using RC4-MD5?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Victor Duchovni <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 08:20:31PM -0700, Ace wrote:
> I know that DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA is more secure than RC4-SHA
The DHE part especially, as it yields forward-secrecy. So far, RC4
with fully random keys has held up reasonably well.
> but it needs
> more computation power and RC4-MD5 is fas
Hi,
I know that DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA is more secure than RC4-SHA but it needs
more computation power and RC4-MD5 is faster. I saw the mixed response on
RC4-MD5 usage. OpenSSL lists it as medium strength cipher but I found that
many people have listed attacks on this, possible in an hour. What i
