RSS |
 |
| F E A T U R E | |
| |
E-Commerce Security Gets a Boost March 20, 2000 By Lori MacVittie It's 3 p.m. on a lazy Sunday, and you're napping comfortably in front of the TV. The sound of crickets chirping outside your window is comforting--until you realize you live in Wisconsin, it's the middle of January and that sound is actually your beeper. You haul yourself to the phone and call in. Ten minutes later you're on your way to work to deal with the latest--yet familiar--crisis: The SSL-enabled site you support has come tumbling down. Your server, overloaded and overworked, has stopped responding. Too many people with nothing to do on Sunday afternoon decided to go online and shop...all at once. A secured Web server can deal with only a limited number of secured transactions per second before "Server too busy" responses begin popping up on customer screens. Losing business because an overworked Web server stumbles does not have to happen. Hardware cryptographic modules (HCMs) claim to provide an SSL-enabled Web server with the extra processing power necessary to handle the complex functions required to secure data from prying eyes. Our tests of HCMs showed that they pretty much live up to the vendors' claims of alleviating server overload. Customers who do business via the Web have itchy mouse fingers, so speed is of the essence. With this in mind, we focused our testing on performance so as to evaluate the increase in response time and the number of transactions per second handled by a secured Web server. Cryptographic processing is one of the most CPU-intensive tasks your Web server can perform. As more customers demand attention from a secure site, more CPU power is used simply performing the complex calculations inherent in encryption. Having fewer CPU cycles available means fewer time slices for responding to new requests, fewer customers served and, in the end, less profit. Although other options--load-balancing, for example--exist and are equally important for improving your customers' ability to access your site, these options involve additional hardware, the cost of maintaining multiple copies of the same site, and less certain return on investment. An HCM can be of immediate benefit without the additional time and expense.
The AXL200 PCI Accelerator Card and Praesidium SpeedCard are PCI hardware options; the nForce SCSI 300 is a SCSI-2-based module. The CryptoSwift EN sports a 10/100 Ethernet connection that acts as a NIC, providing service via the LAN or directly to the server by way of a crossover cable. All support several platforms and Web servers, and each offers a range of security functions, from none to complete key management. The nCipher nForce SCSI 300 takes our Editor's Choice award for the best combination of performance, features and price. It's a scalable, solid product that's certain to enhance the overall security and speed of any "e" site. It also provides complete physical security as well as additional features that keep the keys to your kingdom hidden safely away.
How We Tested
Across the board, the performance of the Web servers on both platforms showed considerable improvement. Response times decreased, processed TPS (transactions per second) improved, and CPU process time on both machines was reduced when enabled with an HCM. One element we did not test or take into consideration was the performance difference between the machines. We took a baseline test for the ProLiant 5500, then separately installed and tested the nForce SCSI 300 and the AXL200 PCI Accelerator Card on that platform. We performed the same baseline test on the Visualize J5000 and later tested the CryptoSwift EN and Praesidium SpeedCard on that platform. Our performance statistics and percentage increases were calculated according to the performance recorded with the unit as compared with the baseline for that platform. We did not directly compare the numbers of TPS handled by an HCM on the Visualize J5000 versus an HCM on the ProLiant 5500, but instead compared the percentage increases affected by each in order to fairly evaluate the performance of the HCM and not the server.
| |
|
PAGE: 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I NEXT PAGE |
|
We tested Compaq Computer Corp.'s AXL200 PCI Accelerator Card, Hewlett-Packard Co.'s Praesidium SpeedCard, nCipher's nForce SCSI 300 and Rainbow Technologies' CryptoSwift EN. We looked at response time and transactions per second handled by our secured Web servers while enabled with each of these cryptographic modules. We also evaluated each product's ability to integrate with Web servers, and examined FIPS-140 levels of certification and the number of platforms supported by these units. Most of these modules also support varying versions of PKCS #11 as well as the Entrust Toolkit, which lets developers create secure applications without the performance cost. 
To generate the 800 virtual clients needed, we used RadView's WebLoad 3.51 distributed across three Windows NT 4.0 clients. We used the same test template for our baseline tests and for each HCM. Our tests consisted of 15 minutes of high-volume requests, starting with 200 clients and peaking at 800 clients halfway through the test. The test was strictly SSL-based, with RSA key lengths of 1,024 bits.Best of the Web
Data deduplication: Declawing the clones
Data deduplication is emerging as a critically important new arrow in the storage administrator's quiver to answer hard questions about the increasing problem in storage growth costs.
Compression, Encryption, Deduplication, and Replication: Strange Bedfellows
One of the great ironies of storage technology is the inverse relationship between efficiency and security: Adding performance or reducing storage requirements almost always results in reducing the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a system.
WAN Optimization Whitelists and Blacklists
Optimization is a fantastic way of saving money and creating really happy customers at the same time, but it doesn't work flawlessly for all applications.
WAN Optimization as a Managed Service: It's Not About the Cost
This insight examines how organizations outsourcing their WAN optimization initiatives to a third-party go about achieving their goals for application performance, reducing operational costs, and streamlining enterprise infrastructure.
