How can I benchmark signature algorithms (HMAC vs

Question

I would like to kind of re-ask a question that was asked here two years ago (Benchmarking symmetric and asymmetric cryptography) but, as I find, was not satisfyingly answered.

• 1) I too would really like to back up the notion that RSA-like asymmetric cryptography is much more expensive than for example performing an HMAC operation with hard numbers. These numbers should be informative with regard to comparability of algorithms.

• 2) Moreover, I would be interested, in addition to mere mean values of speed, also in information about standard derivation/variance of the measured operation costs. This is because in the protocol in question, predictability of the operation time is actually an issue. This goes so far that if candidate A took significantly longer than B, but the time it took was more reliably predicabtle than the time that B took, then A would be my option of choice.

So my question is this: does anybody know of a Benchmarking tool which can give me the desired information 1) and 2) described above?

I should also mention that I have tried the "speed" command of OpenSSL, and found it unsatisfactory. So another question is: do any of you know of any further parameters or tools for that which could help me achieve my goal 2)? This would also be very welcome.

If you feel you can not help me with the first two questions, the last question would be: how is the information given back by "openssl speed rsa" to be read exactly (what are the input sizes, for example 0.o)? An answer to this would help me at least achieve goal 1).

Thanks in advance.

Kris

tl;dr: Do you know of any kind of Benchmark that gives me clear information on the performance of signature algorithms (more than just some general mean value, as for example "openssl speed" will give)? If so, please tell me.

On a side note: please answer only if you have something to contribute to the questions as stated above. Mere recommendations of cryptographic algorithms or such are not really helpful to me.