Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-21 Thread EKR
"Joseph R. Junkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > EKR wrote: > > Now, not all 56-bit modes are equally fast. RC4 in 56 mode > > (one of the experimental cipher suites) > > All I am concerned with right now are what is supported by typical IE > and Netscape users, both US and non-US. > So then sho

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-20 Thread EKR
Simon Weijgers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However, if you're talking to an export browser then you'll > > end up with 512 bits of security but it will be as slow > > as 768 bits because of ephemeral RSA mode. [0] > > > > -Ekr > > > > [0] Yes, I know that 512 bit ephemeral RSA isn't exactl

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-20 Thread Joseph R. Junkin
EKR wrote: > SSL uses EXACTLY the same algorithm for RC4-40 as RC4-128. It > simply expands the 40 bit key to a 128 bit key before feeding > it to RC4. Thus, it's not any faster to use 40 bits. Actually > it's very slightly slower because the expansion takes some > time. OK, makes sense. > > No

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-20 Thread EKR
"Joseph R. Junkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > EKR wrote: > > > > "Joseph R. Junkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I want to run a site with the lowest possible encryption for the highest > > > performance. > > Encryption and performance are not mutually opposed in the way > > you might th

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-20 Thread Joseph R. Junkin
EKR wrote: > > "Joseph R. Junkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I want to run a site with the lowest possible encryption for the highest > > performance. > Encryption and performance are not mutually opposed in the way > you might think. OK, but why not? I am quite new to this (still learning)

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-20 Thread Simon Weijgers
> However, if you're talking to an export browser then you'll > end up with 512 bits of security but it will be as slow > as 768 bits because of ephemeral RSA mode. [0] > > -Ekr > > [0] Yes, I know that 512 bit ephemeral RSA isn't exactly > the same security wise as 512 bit static, but they're

Re: Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-19 Thread EKR
"Joseph R. Junkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I want to run a site with the lowest possible encryption for the highest > performance. I want it to work with typical browsers (Netscape4 & IE4) > Right now I am using: > SLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:RC4+RSA:-HIGH:-MEDIUM:+LOW:+SSLv2:+EXP > > When I acce

Lowest encryption setting?

2000-01-19 Thread Joseph R. Junkin
I want to run a site with the lowest possible encryption for the highest performance. I want it to work with typical browsers (Netscape4 & IE4) Right now I am using: SLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:RC4+RSA:-HIGH:-MEDIUM:+LOW:+SSLv2:+EXP When I access it using IE5, it tells me that it is connecting at 56 b