On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 09:52:01PM +0000, Marc Mutz wrote: > Anyone wants to bet? I'd say one of Twofish, Serpent, Rijndael. To be > precise, I'd say Serpent. Because it is fastest in HW and the most > secure. Software performance was never really high on NISTs list (see > DES). Twofish, while equally secure as Serpent is very complicated and > Rijndael can only be elected if the number of rounds is increased, which > implies a relative performance loss w.r.t. the other two. While specialized hardware may be important, CPU/memory speeds may favor software implementations that allow one to flexibly and simultaneously do compression, encryption, checksumming, etc. with minimal data touching. Look at network stacks; it is not always a win to do the protocol processing (like checksumming) in hardware; if one has to copy the data once, many microprocessors have spare cycles to burn to transform the data. Separating the tranformations can result in increased latency. I'd like to see Twofish win (go Bruce!), but we'll just have to wait and see. Regards, Bill Rugolsky rugolsky@xxxxxxxxxxx Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
