12 ms·
Especially since the NSA has had atleast "a handful of in-house" attacks on AES since 2012. AES(Rijndael) was given a score 1.11 in the AES competition and to p
by aburan28 12y ago
Especially since the NSA has had atleast "a handful of in-house" attacks on AES since 2012. AES(Rijndael) was given a score 1.11 in the AES competition and to put that in context a score of 1.0 is considered a broken cipher. Blowfish scored over 3.0 and was clearly a much stronger candidate algorithm. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-1010361-793640.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-1010361-793...
- tedunangst 12y agoBlowfish? Really? Do you know what you're talking about?
- sarciszewski 12y agoThe benefit of the doubt would say they meant Twofish. The realist says they do not.
- aburan28 12y agoSerpent is the cipher with the score over 3.0 not Blowfish my mistake. But seriously I would read up instead of trusting the conventional wisdom when it comes to the strongest cipher. http://qr.ae/6wveK http://qr.ae/6wveK
- forgotpasswd3x 12y agoSo Serpent appears to be strongest, just slow? Is time really that big of an issue? I mean, why not spend a few extra seconds encrypting something if it is that much more secure?
- sarciszewski 12y agoIf by seconds you mean milliseconds ;)
- tedunangst 12y agoOh, you're talking about safety factors? Reducing that to a "score" loses a lost of context.
- cm2187 12y agoThe problem with serpent is that it seems to be hard to find a simple to use implementation for a non specialist, and god knows how much review the few implementations around benefited from.
- harshreality 12y ago> NSA had had at least "a handful of in-house" attacks on AES That is not what that link says.