-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/17/2013 12:02 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Why would anyone choose AES-128 instead of something more secure, >> say AES-256? > > "More secure" is sort of ... missing the point. It's sort of like > arguing over whether King Kong or Godzilla is better at urban > destruction. We choose between ciphers principally based on > features other than some nebulous concept of 'security', at which > we can say that all the ciphers are more or less equally secure.
(Definitely Godzilla) But why do people tell me that DH, DSA, and RSA under 2048 are unacceptable? > > Insofar as why one might be chosen over another, a big reason is > regulatory compliance. For instance, a business might be > constrained by laws or regulations that require 128-bit crypto. > Some regulations may require national standards to be used; in this > case, a Japanese business may be required to use Camellia, while a > U.S. business would be required to use AES or 3DES. > > The other big reason to prefer one over another is comfort. I've > audited GnuPG's 3DES code and I'm satisfied that it's correct; I > haven't audited the other algorithms. That means I feel more > comfortable using 3DES. > How can I find whats on my list? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) Comment: MacGPG2 - http://www.gpgtools.org/macgpg2.html Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSsIzHAAoJECrdp7MWSIVb4z8H/3rsJx28X0LfAeRmMXo2yoce 48HnFEzs/jZ/aXT+yuBr73Ri81MCGtGvW0M0DNzWAwY5GRHiP6FiXbYBfMHovVVY hoFwq20MAEkkHRDx34pkrPMqiQj2m6hR/ayJ+bkIMZquYS3z6gnbJYpp1NS5Uwi0 PI81Q7gWzi4xTv/NFluCLfry7Gc6TGXop71L6RROqhkSG1MJ4c1Aev3D7cW7h0Ke r8WGlD9NDa9lZUSotKgQveIwFvwsMYmpeqWeP4/m5Xb+GReuVsy7ugirOMz4xmTA FoMSx63YyH5JLii/+z/Afn/iTXgXNRP3pIfqak2DseM0eDR1rh1dJFkR9xBJex0= =9656 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users