On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:11:09AM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Thursday 03 July 2003 11:56 pm, Toad wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:49:59PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > > On Thursday 03 July 2003 08:51 pm, Toad wrote: > > > > http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0209.html#1 > > > > > > > > This seems to suggest that AES with a 256 bit key can be cracked in > > > > 2^100 effort. It is unclear what effect this would have on 128 bit AES, > > > > however it seems prudent to use 256 bits if we can. Implementation > > > > details? Any opposition? > > > > > > Hey, while we're on the subject I think the data store should default to > > > 64bit (Blowfish). I find that gives better performance than 128 bit. And > > > sense it does not prevent a node operator form knowing the contents of > > > their store, because they could just turn it off... And there is the same > > > protection legally speaking whether is is 64 or 128 bit, we might as well > > > use the faster system. > > > > We don't encrypt the store and haven't done since we got rid of the > > monolithic datastore in October. > > In that case why is there still an option for it in the config file?
Because getting rid of old options causes the config parser to break on old configs :( -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
