4 ms·

Salsa20 and ChaCha20 are faster on modern hardware than built-in AES instructions. AES is just old and complex. As Salsa family and other modern ciphers have sh

by Kubuxu 9y ago

Salsa20 and ChaCha20 are faster on modern hardware than built-in AES instructions. AES is just old and complex. As Salsa family and other modern ciphers have shown you don't have to use complex function to achieve security.

tw04 9y ago
Salsa20 and ChaCha20 aren't FIPS140-2 certified (that I'm aware of or can find documented) which is pretty much a basic requirement at this point for anything in the enterprise.
- Kubuxu 9y ago
  And they probably won't for political reasons. Salsa20 was created by DJB who has previously fought with US Gov against encryption export ban and also they have their own suits they prefer you to use (for their own reasons). Here is a reason why you can't trust US Gov for creating secure encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
  - tw04 9y ago
    It doesn't matter if I trust or distrust the US government for creating secure encryption. There are laws in place across a plethora of industries REQUIRING FIPS140-2. If you want to do business in the US, it's a basic requirement. At the end of the day the odds of this filesystem gaining any traction are basically 0. I'm just pointing out that not supporting an encryption algorithm that can meet the FIPS requirement makes it basically a non-starter for any commercial application.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      > At the end of the day the odds of this filesystem gaining any traction are basically 0. I'm just pointing out that not supporting an encryption algorithm that can meet the FIPS requirement makes it basically a non-starter for any commercial application. In the US. In many other countries, it might gain lots of traction.
      - kjs3 9y ago
        You guys might want to learn what FIPS-140 actually specifies before deciding it's part of a nefarious plot. > In many other countries, it might gain lots of traction. Maybe, with a handful of techno-anarchists impotently shaking their fist at any US originated standard. But 'other' governments and enterprises routinely spec FIPS-140 compliance. For example, in the EU, CWA-14167 is the equivalent standard, but even ENISA acknowledges that FIPS-140 is equivalent, more widely adopted and is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
dom0 9y ago
This is just plain wrong. - AES-256-CTR is about ~25 % faster with AES-NI than ChaCha20. The gap widens when we consider their respective AEAD constructions. - AES construction has had simply different design goals than ChaCha20. Software implementations took the back seat, Hardware impls were important and AES is unproblematic for those. - AES is arguably a rather conservative design. To some extent even twenty years later.

by Kubuxu 9y ago

tw04 9y ago

Salsa20 and ChaCha20 aren't FIPS140-2 certified (that I'm aware of or can find documented) which is pretty much a basic requirement at this point for anything in the enterprise.

Kubuxu 9y ago
And they probably won't for political reasons. Salsa20 was created by DJB who has previously fought with US Gov against encryption export ban and also they have their own suits they prefer you to use (for their own reasons). Here is a reason why you can't trust US Gov for creating secure encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
- tw04 9y ago
  It doesn't matter if I trust or distrust the US government for creating secure encryption. There are laws in place across a plethora of industries REQUIRING FIPS140-2. If you want to do business in the US, it's a basic requirement. At the end of the day the odds of this filesystem gaining any traction are basically 0. I'm just pointing out that not supporting an encryption algorithm that can meet the FIPS requirement makes it basically a non-starter for any commercial application.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    > At the end of the day the odds of this filesystem gaining any traction are basically 0. I'm just pointing out that not supporting an encryption algorithm that can meet the FIPS requirement makes it basically a non-starter for any commercial application. In the US. In many other countries, it might gain lots of traction.
    - kjs3 9y ago
      You guys might want to learn what FIPS-140 actually specifies before deciding it's part of a nefarious plot. > In many other countries, it might gain lots of traction. Maybe, with a handful of techno-anarchists impotently shaking their fist at any US originated standard. But 'other' governments and enterprises routinely spec FIPS-140 compliance. For example, in the EU, CWA-14167 is the equivalent standard, but even ENISA acknowledges that FIPS-140 is equivalent, more widely adopted and is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

dom0 9y ago

This is just plain wrong. - AES-256-CTR is about ~25 % faster with AES-NI than ChaCha20. The gap widens when we consider their respective AEAD constructions. - AES construction has had simply different design goals than ChaCha20. Software implementations took the back seat, Hardware impls were important and AES is unproblematic for those. - AES is arguably a rather conservative design. To some extent even twenty years later.