-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
> > 150 clocks (Intel's figure) implies 18.75 clocks per byte. > That's not bad at all. It's in the neighborhood of what I remember my DRBG running at with AES-NI. Faster, but not by a lot. However, I will getting the full 16 bytes out of the AES operation and RDRAND is doing 64 bits at a time, right? > > Note that Skein 512 in pure software costs only about 6.25 clocks per byte. > Three times faster! If RDRAND were entered in the SHA-3 contest, it would > rank in the bottom third of the remaining contestants. > http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html As much as it warms my heart to hear you say that, it's not a fair comparison. A DRBG has to do a lot of other stuff, too. The DRBG is an interesting beast and a subject of a whole different conversation. Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672) Charset: windows-1252 wj8DBQFP4B3lsTedWZOD3gYRAkegAJ0Z491IAfNVXX3hKOdOghPczZmWMACgztIG Ym7qE1e/es0m0o+macE+Iv0= =GJXv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
