TheorizationAlongObliqueSpeculation

The ramblings of someone with more time to think up sh!t than time to write it up

Benchmark PGP versus Truecrypt Full Disk Encryption

March 26th, 2008 · 2 Comments

I noticed something rather important missing in the realm of Full Disk Encryption, and that was benchmark data. The methodology I followed may be a bit unorthodox but would provide me with a consistant platform to test with.

I installed Windows XP SP2 on VMWare Fusion and applied all the patches available from our WSUS server. After installing the Benchmark application I created a SnapShot so that I could revert to the original install everytime with no deviations in installation, i.e. I was lazy.

I only encountered one major problem with running the Disk benchmark on PC Mark 04 when using TwoFish/RIPEMD160 encryption in TrueCrypt the entire benchmark would come up with the useless Windows Has Encountered a Problem message.

Platform Used

Apple MacBook Pro 15″ (2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, 120GB 5400 HDD, 8600GT 128MB)
Windows XP SP2
VMWare Fusion
CrystalMark 2004r3
Crystal DiskMark 2
PGP Desktop 9.82 Win32
TrueCrypt 5.1

Unfortunately I could not get a trial copy of Utimaco’s software. As soon as I can get one I will post an update.

Results

Crystal Disk Mark Results
Click Image for a larger copy

Crystal Mark 2004r3 Results

Click Image for a larger copy

Download Raw Benchmark Data & Graphs

I did not expect to see such a large performance hit over unencrypted, even less so such a similarity in performance between TrueCrypt and PGP. Interestingly PGP had more of a hit on overall performance. Points of interest are the ALU and FPU scores, TrueCrypt AES being the least system intensive, and the fact that PGP has the best HDD performance.

Tags: General · IT Security · Review · Software · Windows

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 KimW // Mar 26, 2008 at 15:44

    I did some testing using a HP nc4200 and the results where pretty much the same, but I could not trust them as much thanks to the benchmarks crashing more often than running through on the machine. I do plan on doing it again when I can get a more reliable workstation. I had planned on using PCMark as well, but it would not run the Disk tests on an encrypted drive, even on a VM session.

    I use the VM sessions quite a bit and did notice a perceivable difference in performance when the system was encrypted, and the tests showed the difference graphically. xxGERMxx tweeted that he noticed a significant boot time difference which I noticed when the VM was encrypted.

  • 2 Sid // Apr 6, 2008 at 6:49

    I don't think that using a VM will make consistent result. Also when using my laptop encrypted with AES (TrueCrypt) I don't see so much difference!

Leave a Comment

Please do not submit your comment twice as comment moderation may be in use

http://profile.xfire.com/andronin