Jameson Rollins wrote:
> We should be careful not to overstate the impatience of users too much.
> I've seen plenty of people wait many seconds for google maps to load on
> phones without giving up on the whole process. I also have an extremely
> slow machine were I routinely have to wait a long t
On Monday 27 September 2010 15:51:10 Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:25:21 +0200, Ludwig Hügelschäfer
wrote:
> > Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a
> > reaction. This is where the human mind is starting to think there's
> > something wrong.
>
> We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 27 September 2010 at 8:14:31 PM, in
, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> Hmm, maybe I miss the point, but hey, we're living in
> the age where dual- and quadcore processors are as
> common as our daily bread,
In "proper" computers. But in mobile
On 27.09.2010, Vjaceslavs Klimovs wrote:
> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
> input too.
Hmm, maybe I miss the point, but hey, we're living in the age where dual-
and quadcore processors
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:25:21 +0200, Ludwig Hügelschäfer
wrote:
> Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a
> reaction. This is where the human mind is starting to think there's
> something wrong.
We should be careful not to overstate the impatience of users too much.
I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote on 27.09.10 15:57:
> "Dreadfully" is a difficult thing to enumerate anyway. For me, FWIW, it
> would be "over 1-2 seconds".
Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a
reaction. This is where the human min
On 09/27/2010 10:55 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:28:07 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
> wrote:
>> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
>> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
>> input too.
>
> I think this is re
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> David Smith wrote:
>> Not truly "quantitative", but I notice a significant difference
>> between encrypting emails to people with 1024-bit keys vs people with
>> 4096-bit keys. I'd say that the difference is in the order 3-6
>> seconds.
>
>> I'm running GnuPG 1.4.x on a
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:28:07 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
wrote:
> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
> input too.
I think this is really a UI issue, in which case "real" is what you
really c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Smith wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards.
>>> It also will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are
>>> communicating with) eve
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:56:52 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
wrote:
> I did some quick tests on Nokia N900 (600 MHz ARM CPU), with gnupg
> 1.4.6, here is what I got:
>
> Encrypting and signing, 2048 bit RSA keys:
>
> real0m 2.50s
> user 0m 0.50s
> sys 0m 0.02s
>
> Decrypting and verifying, 20
On 27/09/10 16:21, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:56:52 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
> wrote:
>> I did some quick tests on Nokia N900 (600 MHz ARM CPU), with gnupg
>> 1.4.6, here is what I got:
>>
>> Encrypting and signing, 2048 bit RSA keys:
>>
>> real0m 2.50s
>> user 0m 0.50s
On 09/27/2010 05:12 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Not truly "quantitative, but I notice a significant difference between
> encrypting emails to people with 1024-bit keys vs people with 4096-bit
> keys. I'd say that the difference is in the order 3-6 seconds.
ah, ok. i'll add encrypting messages to th
On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Are there other interpretations of the above results? does anyone else
> want to post comparable data points on different hardware? How powerful
> is a typical smartphone anyway? What kind of a cutoff are people
> willing to accept in te
On 27/09/10 11:12, David Smith wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards. It also
>>> will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are communicating with) ever
>>> uses the key on a small
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards. It also
>> will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are communicating with) ever
>> uses the key on a small machine (think smart phone). If you are usu
On 9/24/10 4:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> My conclusion from the above data points is that if we're concerned
> about computational inefficiencies, 4096-bit RSA keys are not
> particularly bad offenders.
>
> Are there other interpretations of the above results? does anyone else
> want t
On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Vjaceslavs Klimovs wrote:
>> Is it good idea to create 4096 bit keys when creating new key pair? I
>> read through archives on this mailing list, and it seems there is no
>> real disadvantages of doing so.
>
> It won't work w
18 matches
Mail list logo
