<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Best Performance with 2.3 and AES-NI?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">If one has a modern Intel CPU with AES-NI <em>(hardware crypto reports: AES-CBC,AES-XTS,AES-GCM,AES-ICM<br />
)</em>, will AES128-GCM + SHA1 result in the best performance? Or would changing the hashing algorithm to AES-XCBC offer better performance than SHA1?</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/100324/best-performance-with-2-3-and-aes-ni</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 01:10:49 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/100324.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2016 14:35:03 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Best Performance with 2.3 and AES-NI? on Sun, 22 May 2016 19:52:31 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Change your hashing to AES-XCBC because that will get accelerated by AES-NI since it's AES (of course).</p>
<p dir="auto">The hashing algorithm really doesn't matter that much, because an attacker still needs to break to break the encryption layer, so AES-XCBC is perfectly fine and will be accelerated by AES-NI.</p>
<p dir="auto">Everyone should always choose AES-XCBC when using AES-GCM.</p>
<p dir="auto">I hope that helps.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/626550</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/626550</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[nzkiwi68]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2016 19:52:31 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>