3 ms·
Intel CPUs (since Westmere, 2010 [1][2]) encrypt with AES GCM (the recommended cipher suite for TLS) at gigabytes per second per core [3]. You can saturate 10Gb
by wolf550e 8y ago
Intel CPUs (since Westmere, 2010 [1][2]) encrypt with AES GCM (the recommended cipher suite for TLS) at gigabytes per second per core [3]. You can saturate 10Gbps pipe on a single core.
My laptop can do 1,400 RSA 2048 sign operations per second per core [4], 16,000 P-256 ops and 25,000 X25519 ops per second per core [5], so I wouldn't care about handshake performance either.
With large files, you don't care about the performance of the handshake, but if you do care about handshakes you can reuse http connections and use TLS session resumption for new connections, which avoids the relatively expensive asymmetric crypto (with modern servers, ECDHE and RSA digital signature). libcurl will do it, among others, so build your client using a good https library.
What is expensive about serving large amounts of content over HTTPS?
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLMUL_instruction_set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLMUL_instruction_set
3 - run "openssl speed -evp aes-128-gcm", my laptop does 4.5GB/s
4 - openssl speed rsa
5 - openssl speed ecdh
- zerotolerance 8y agoTLS only authenticates the endpoint, not the delivered packages. You need PGP/GPG anyway. TLS only provides a privacy that most organizations neither want nor need. It is overhead in terms of connection management, crypto processing, and additional PKI management for which there is no benefit.
- pas 8y agoThe only benefit is the TLS-by-default mindset. It's not exactly a huge benefit, though on the other hand setting up TLS is not that hard nowadays.
- tedunangst 8y agoBenefit or con? As demonstrated by a few comments here, the TLS by default mindset seems to encourage people to believe that TLS is all you'll ever need, the solution to all your problems.
- flatiron 8y agothe reason why apt (and I assume apk) don't use SSL has nothing to do with the CPU https://whydoesaptnotusehttps.com/ https://whydoesaptnotusehttps.com/
- wolf550e 8y agoI'm just replying to "Serving large amounts of content over HTTPS is expensive".
- Groxx 8y ago>HTTPS does not provide meaningful privacy for obtaining packages. As an eavesdropper can usually see which hosts you are contacting, if you connect to your distribution's mirror network it would be fairly obvious that you are downloading updates. This assumes that package hosts segregate themselves by all possible privacy-related dimensions. They don't. If you host illegal-in-country-X content on AWS and someone downloads it there, HTTPS would've prevented that from being seen. HTTP does not. --- HTTPS belongs everywhere. It has flaws, of course, but there's no reasonable alternative at the moment. You can't predict what governments will decide in the future, and HTTP-now means they can record it and apply rules retroactively if they change their mind. This kind of thing gets people killed.