On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:05 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:41:52PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > I vote for AES 256 rather than 128.
>
> Why? This page seems to think 128 is sufficient:
>
>
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20/what-are-the-practical-differences-between-256-bit-192-bit-and-128-bit-aes-enc
>
> For practical purposes, 128-bit keys are sufficient to ensure security.
> The larger key sizes exist mostly to satisfy some US military
> regulations which call for the existence of several distinct "security
> levels", regardless of whether breaking the lowest level is already far
> beyond existing technology.
>
> We might need to run some benchmarks to determine the overhead of going
> to AES256, because I am unclear of the security value.
If the algorithm and key size is not going to be configurable then
better to lean toward the larger size, especially given the desire for
future proofing against standards evolution and potential for the
encrypted data to be very long lived. NIST recommends AES-128 or
higher but there are other publications that recommend AES-256 for
long term usage:
NIST - 2019 : Recommends AES-128, AES-192, or AES-256.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-131Ar2.pdf
NSA - 2016 : Recommends AES-256 for future quantum resistance.
https://apps.nsa.gov/iaarchive/library/ia-guidance/ia-solutions-for-classified/algorithm-guidance/cnsa-suite-and-quantum-computing-faq.cfm
ECRYPT - 2015 - Recommends AES-256 for future quantum resistance.
https://www.ecrypt.eu.org/csa/documents/PQC-whitepaper.pdf
ECRYPT - 2018 - Recommends AES-256 for long term use.
https://www.ecrypt.eu.org/csa/documents/D5.4-FinalAlgKeySizeProt.pdf
Regards,
-- Sehrope Sarkuni
Founder & CEO | JackDB, Inc. | https://www.jackdb.com/
