Damian Menscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Samuli Suonpaa wrote: >> Umm... As you state, most applications asymmetric only for the key and >> symmetric for data. How come you still consider symmetric encryption >> to be faster? > I'm afraid I don't understand your question...
It might be, because I left at least one word out. _And_, the whole question was, I think, quite poorly written. Let's try again, shall we. > Why do you think the asymmetric algorithms are really just wrappers > around a symmetric algorithm? (Answer: because the symmetric method > is faster!) My point exactly. No, how come we came to think we had different opinions on this one? The thread started by somebody asking a way to encrypt files asymmetric and Brian May stated symmetric method was faster. _Technically_ this is, of course, true. But, from the users point of view, saying "gpg -e" imho qualifies as using asymmetric encryption, although the data is _technically_ encrypted symmetric and only the key asymmetric. So, this in mind, I told there was no notable difference in whether you use symmetric or asymmetric encryption. Please note, that I was talking about the use of gpg - or pgp - all the time. Although it seems I should have made that more clear. My point in all this is, that when I encrypt something for myself - like when making backups - I usually use "gpg -er suonpaa" instead of "gpg -c". Neat and simple, safe enough and as fast as "gpg -c", I think. Although I have never cared enough to time it, really. (My lack of language skills... Is it okay to say the data was encrypted symmetric or should I say it was encrypted symmetrically?) Suonpää...
