2 ms·
AES(Rijndael) was the weakest out of the final three contenders for the advanced encryption standard. Serpent and Twofish were clearly more secure but Rijndael
by aburan28 12y ago
AES(Rijndael) was the weakest out of the final three contenders for the advanced encryption standard. Serpent and Twofish were clearly more secure but Rijndael was chosen because of its speed. There are attacks that have broken 11 of out the 14 AES-256 rounds (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/another_new_aes.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/another_new_a...). Using a combination of RNG weaknesses, CPU attacks, software vulnerabilities I don't think its crazy to conclude that the FBI can "crack" AES implementations in targeted investigations.
- xnull2guest 12y agoIt's also important to note that timing attacks on AES are trivial, whereas other ciphers (Serpent is a popular favorite) is timing-free with naive implementations. http://cr.yp.to/antiforgery/cachetiming-20050414.pdf http://cr.yp.to/antiforgery/cachetiming-20050414.pdf