i suggest to implement the blowfish encryption algorithm because it is much much faster that AES.
blowfish is not less secure than AES.
what about this idea ?
greetings from germany
merry chrismas to everyone :P
further sources http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net
this programm includes an benchmark between many encryption algorithms... blowfish wins! :>
How does Twofish stack up? It's the algorithm I've been using lately (w/PGP).
Perhaps a variety of algorithms could be implemented.
AES is fast too.
the benchmarks in the truecrypt program show that blowfish is much faster than AES :>
AES speed is enough for 7-zip. It is 40 times faster than LZMA compressing.
Sounds like a buggy implementation in that library. AES is faster than Blowfish - it's the main reason why it was chosen as encryption standard.
Seems to be the benchmark program in Truecrypt that is unreliable actually. If I benchmark several times I get AES speeds from 16M/s to 47M/s, which makes it pretty useless.
When selecting a large buffer AES moves to top speed - as would be expected.
good to know. thanks gcp! merry chrismas from germany
encryption is not about speed
its about security
AES and Blowfish are secure... so we can talk about speed...^^
The most common block-encryption-algorithms have the following proportions of compression and decompression-speed in software.
Blowfish is totally different to AES. It might be more secure than AES but imo AES is enough secure and very fast.
this means the truecrypt benchmark is totally crap :>
could be.... but im not sure^^
I like and trust in TrueCrypt but the benchmark seems to be crap. I don's use its benchmark. The speed of the different algorithms is well known, so I can live without it if I suppose that the TrueCrypt-implementation of the algorithms is about as fast as other implementations with useful benchmarks and reference-implementations.
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.