Re: Byte Addressability And Beyond

On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:07:12 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:03:53 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
 

On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:31:46 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
=20 

30 years ago you could say the same thing about encryption. =20 

=20
I don=E2=80=99t think newer CPUs have been optimized for
encryption. Inst= 

ead, 

we see newer encryption algorithms (or ways of using them) that
work better on current CPUs.=20 

>
I think moderate efficiency on CPU, not too low, but not high either,
is a requirement for (symmetric-key) cipher. Esp. when the key is
128-bit or shorter. 

 
Most modern CPUs have instruction set support for symmetric ciphers
such as AES, SM2/SM3 as well as message digest/hash (SHA1, SHA256 et
al).
 

It is still not *too* fast.
'Too fast' in my book is when with 1B to 10B USD worth of OTP servers
you can break cipher by brute force in less than 1 hour.

High throughput encryption has been done by hardware accelerators for
decades now (e.g. bbn or ncypher HSM boxes sitting on a SCSI bus;
now such HSM are an integral part of many SoC).

BTDT, not in high volume app so, and with programmable logic rather
than ASIC. It's still sufficiently slow to not become dangerous for
the order of the world.