Re: Generate a one-time pad from say a 256bit key?

"Tom St Denis" <tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Unruh wrote:
"Tom St Denis" <tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
?????? You castigate him for his standard laptop, and then start quoting
Best Buy to justify your choice? Sheesh. Gigabit IS the standard now in any
kind of high performace location. Our University department is even
converting now to Gigabit.

Hehehe, oh this explains your attitude. You haven't got a real job
yet.

Universities are NOT THE REAL WORLD.

Yes, they are usually more cash strapped than the real world in many ways.


Look up where I work, the workstations JUST moved to 100mbit [the HPC
centre has much higher bandwidth stuff though].

You'd probably be surprised at the amount of 10 and 100mbit stuff still
lying around.

Of course there is a lot of 10 to 100Mbit stuff around. There are also
millions and millions of 500MHz PIII and Pentuim machines around. YOu took
the highest level processor, linked it to slow outdated network and disks,
and said-- See AES can more than keep up. IF you want to use old network
and disk speeds, use old processor speeds as well-- that is my point.

And you do not want to have your computer use 100% of its processing power
to do the encryption. Or even 20.

But you wouldn't be. It doesn't take 100% of my processor to max out a
hard drives sustained write speed. Just because your SATA port is
3Gb/sec doesn't mean the drive can sustain that. A single 7200RPM
drive usually can sustain a max of 10MiB/sec. My raid-5 array can get
about 30MiB/sec.

I doubt your typical laptop or home computer will have a NAS device for
your precious home videos or whatever... So even at 30MiB/sec that's
1/5th the top throughput of the AES routine. With overhead and all
that jazz you'd probably be taking 30-40% of the processor time at most
[hard for me to say because I have four cores in my workstation...
hehehe :-)]

Sheesh. 30-40% t encrypt, 30-40% to decrypt and you have your whole
processor in use just to copy a file. That level should be down at a max of
1%.



Point is, if you design cryptosystems for a Pentium 3 then you have a
very small niche market. On my box RC4 gets 223390K/sec and AES-128
gets 142393K/sec. Sure RC4 is faster, but I'd be damned to see my RAID
array sustain 142393K/sec.

No, if you design it for quad core processors you have a very small niche
market. 500MHz or slower processors are by far the majority out there.


So instead of proposing people use non-standard inferior crypto, we
could be professionals here and recommend standards based proper
crypto. There are ways of getting fast encryption. Using non-standard
algos is not the way.

RC4 IS a "standard" algo, just as Windows is a "standard" operating system.
Most of the world's crypto by volume uses RC4 I am sure on the web.

No, TLS uses RC4. TLS didn't specify RC4 [e.g. create it] therefore
it's not a standard.

But this line of thinking is ludicrous. Windows standard? O RLY? So
you mean my Win3.11 applications will work flawlessly in Vista? I
certainly have X11 applications from the early 90s that still work in
2006.

There are standards which are set by standards bodies and standards which
are set by the marketplace. Both are important.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Paging the photographers.
    ... sheesh - that's a pretty obvious one to get. ... standards are slipping. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Patriot College Accrediting needed!
    ... indeed better than any non-accredited agency. ... Sheesh. ... He is, after all, a creationist cretin, and not a particularly bright example ... McCoy is special even by Creationist standards. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Patriot College Accrediting needed!
    ... indeed better than any non-accredited agency. ... Sheesh. ... He is, after all, a creationist cretin, and not a particularly bright example ... McCoy is special even by Creationist standards. ...
    (talk.origins)