Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Byte Addressability And Beyond
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:22:27 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <20240603132227.00004e0f@yahoo.com>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me>
	<v31c4r$3u28v$1@dont-email.me>
	<v327n3$1use$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<BM25O.40665$HBac.4762@fx15.iad>
	<v32lpv$1u25$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<v33bqg$9cst$11@dont-email.me>
	<v34v62$ln01$1@dont-email.me>
	<v36bva$10k3v$2@dont-email.me>
	<2024May29.090435@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
	<v38opv$1gsj2$3@dont-email.me>
	<v38rkd$1ha8a$1@dont-email.me>
	<jwvttifrysb.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
	<f90b6e03c727b0f209d64484ec097298@www.novabbs.org>
	<v3jtd8$3qduu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:22:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e115e67b3843932598c276339879624";
	logging-data="4002254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4jZT+2MrW86uW/n4/dkqnjHvMZTQFF3o="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:stnlZkTFsn5JKeLbcRSGYHTQJfI=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2365

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:03:53 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:31:46 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>=20
> > 30 years ago you could say the same thing about encryption. =20
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t think newer CPUs have been optimized for encryption. Inst=
ead,
> we see newer encryption algorithms (or ways of using them) that work
> better on current CPUs.=20

I think moderate efficiency on CPU, not too low, but not high either,
is a requirement for (symmetric-key) cipher. Esp. when the key is
128-bit or shorter.

> For example, when I was first learning about
> computer encryption, I was told that CBC (=E2=80=9CCipher-Block Chaining=
=E2=80=9D)
> mode was teh hawtness,=20

CBC decrypt is easily parallelized. Encrypt - not so
much.

> but nowadays it=E2=80=99s all about GFC (=E2=80=9CGalois-Field
> Counter=E2=80=9D) mode.

GCM is far more common spelling.