Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:40:15 +0200 From: webmaster <webmaster@n-o-x.org> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which AES to use? Message-ID: <4E801E4F.8040202@n-o-x.org> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BQLa9ARooKR1qzj%2BGVSZHgC2ZA0nZqpbpOQ8ryBjcy79Eq5TQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BQLa9ARooKR1qzj%2BGVSZHgC2ZA0nZqpbpOQ8ryBjcy79Eq5TQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't know cryptopgraphics very well but the data throughput would be a little better with lower keysize. However with a powerful CPU (maybe AES-NI instructions included) this wouldn't matter anymore. As compromise you could choose AES-192 if you need it more secure than 128 bit. Finally quoted from Bruce Schneiers Blog: "And for new applications I suggest that people don't use AES-256. AES-128 provides more than enough security margin for the forseeable future. But if you're already using AES-256, there's no reason to change." Best regards Robert Am 25.09.2011 23:17, schrieb Robert Simmons: > I've been reading on Bruce Schneier's blog about key diffusion and the > key schedule in AES 256 being poor. Including this, for use in a geli > encrypted provider, what are the pros and cons of selecting AES 128, > 192, or 256? > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E801E4F.8040202>