<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: "CIPE-list" <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
Subject: Re: Data integrity check in CIPE - Please explain me the necessityor benefit of a larger checksum.
From: "Hans Steegers" <hsx,AT,dds,DOT,nl>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:49:46 +0200
Reply-to: "Hans Steegers" <steegers,AT,steegers,DOT,nl>

Hi Taracos (?),

>> ôÁÒÁÓÏ×, (Taracos?)
>>
>Sorry, national language encoding. Corporate standard and such.
>Can't write from home.
Doesn't matter, I just was curious if I translated the russian alphabet
correctly.

>I've tried to ran cipe over fast ethernet and achieved 1.7 mbps
uncompressed
>FTP file transfer with P-225 (overclocked a bit :))
What do you get without CIPE?
>In your situation, you probably are limited by underlying bandwith more
than
>by CPU speed (my statement may be completely wrong in your situation,
>though!)
Yes bandwidth is the limitation: ADSL here has an upload bandwidth of
256kbps.
The CPU is not a problem: a 486/66 is the minimum for a 128 kbps connection
and compression will make is more usable. On faster connections it isn't
anymore.
For fast connections you need considerable CPU-power for compression and
encryption to be effective.
I have conducted many tests, that is why I want to avoid CPU-expensive
solutions.

>Another idea just popped up in my mind: why we can't just put CRC32 into
>encrypted part of the message, and control consistency of the message
after,
>say , "blind" decription? This just won't let any open part that could
>possibly be analyzed and corrupted, except for the whole message?
>
This looks like an example of synchronicity: Mark came with the same idea.
See the list for the responses. It is worth to investigate.

Regards,

Hans Steegers


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]