gpg vs aespipe (linux)

From: BM (me_at_my.home)
Date: 08/24/05


Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:03:31 +0200

I'm checking the efficiency of gpg and aespipe when doing, seemingly, the
same task. I use gpg 1.2.4 from the distro and aespipe 2.2d compiled from
source. That's what I get when I repeat several times and in different
order the following ("100MB" is a file of that size)

$time gpg -z 0 -c --cipher-algo aes256 --passphrase-fd 3 3< pass < 100MB > /dev/null
4.90user 0.06system 0:04.96elapsed 99%CPU

$time aespipe -e aes256 -H sha512 -p 3 3< pass < 100MB > /dev/null
1.67user 0.04system 0:01.71elapsed 99%CPU

You see that aespipe is three times faster than gpg. [Although times are
small, I think they are meaningful] So my questions are: are they really
doing the same thing? Is just that aespipe is more efficiently coded? Is
the encrypted data equally secure?

Thank you for the answers



Relevant Pages

  • gpg vs aespipe
    ... I'm checking the efficiency of gpg and aespipe when doing, seemingly, the same task. ... You see that aespipe is three times faster than gpg. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: gpg vs aespipe (linux)
    ... >You see that aespipe is three times faster than gpg. ... gpg is providing both encryption + message authentication. ...
    (sci.crypt)