Re: [Duplicity-talk] symmetric key, or public gpg key?

[Kenneth Loafman]

Sorry, missed one of the questions... Encryption is covered by gpg directly.

...Ken

Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> Duplicity is primarily IO bound, so I've never actually timed the
> difference.  I imagine that unless you had an extremely old or slow
> processor, it would not be that much difference.
> 
> ...Ken
> 
> Chris Poole wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I assume the encryption stuff is handled with gpgme or something; it's
>> not actually your own encryption code?
>>
>> Also, do you know if a symmetric key would perform faster than using a
>> public key?
>>
>> Chris Poole
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Loafman <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>
>>     Chris Poole wrote:
>>     > Hi,
>>     > I had planned to just use my gpg key for encryption.
>>     >
>>     > Now I'm wondering, will performance be better with a symmetric key?
>>     >
>>     > Even when I use my public key, it still asks for me a passphrase
>>     anyway.
>>
>>     The current bzr version has the fix for this and it will be in 0.6.06.
>>     When adding the cache-sync part of the code I made it always ask for a
>>     password (not good).  Now it does not unless it needs to sync the cache.
>>
>>     I will try to get 0.6.06 out later this week.
>>
>>     ...Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>     address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>>     http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature