3 ms·
The performance comparison to SSL is not really fair, since tcpcrypt does not offer security against passive attackers.
by sweis 16y ago
The performance comparison to SSL is not really fair, since tcpcrypt does not offer security against passive attackers.
- Gonsalu 16y agoYou haven't read the site, have you? > If, however, a Tcpcrypt connection is successful and any attackers that exist are passive, then Tcpcrypt guarantees privacy.
- sweis 16y agoGood catch. I meant to say that tcpcrypt is vulnerable to active attacks, rather than passive. The point is that it is not a useful comparison to say that tcpcrypt is 36x faster than SSL, when it offers a weaker level of security.
- ycweb 16y agoIf you use X.509 server authentication with 2,048-bit RSA keys, tcpcrypt offers about a 25x speed-up over SSL for equivalent security. (Actually slightly better, since tcpcrypt offers forward secrecy while, in the benchmark, SSL does not.) The key optimization is batch signing, where a single RSA signature can authenticate a bunch of connections at once. There are graphs showing this in the paper and talk slides.