Sujet : Re: BridgeWorks
De : ldo (at) *nospam* nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Groupes : comp.os.vmsDate : 24. Jul 2024, 01:11:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v7pgrb$1dsq8$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:07 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
In article <v7n59g$11h0t$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
D'Oliveiro) wrote:
The original recommendation was to stick with AES-128, and not bother
with AES-192 or AES-256; as far as I know that hasn't changed.
That very definitely depends on your use case. My first one, back in
about 2012, was protecting archives of source code that would still be
valuable now. AES-256 was a no-brainer.
The thing is, AES-256 showed signs of some weaknesses (some kind of
collisions/congestion in the bit-swizzling somewhere) that AES-128 does
not suffer from.
BridgeWorks
Re: BridgeWorks