Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70
From: headcrash (headcrash_at_platter.com)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Moe Trin: "Re: Multi spyware"
- Previous message: Samuël ML Lison: "Re: ZoneAlarm & Mozilla Thunderbird"
- In reply to: Johan Wevers: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Next in thread: IPGrunt: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:54:26 -0800
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:59:16 GMT, johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan
Wevers) wrote:
>headcrash <headcrash@platter.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree with you about RC5. Way elegant. That is a great example.
>
>>I find the SKIPJACK algorithm to be incredibly elegant, as well, both
>>in design and capability.
>
>I just looked at it (the old skipjack module code for GnuPG 1.0), and
>the code looks elegant, except for the array of 256 bytes.
>
>Unfortunately Skipjack isn't secure, so wether or not it's elegant,
>it doesn't match the second criterium.
As far as I know, you are incorrect. The attacks on Skipjack were for
reduced rounds.
Skipjack is secure as designed to 80-bits.
Skipjack was designed by the NSA. There was a good deal of discussion
in sci.crypt and the attacks do not work against full Skipjack.
The speculation is that it was designed "just enough" to resist
cryptanalysis, another elegant idea.
My thinking is that to be able to do that on a crypto algorithm, while
you are adding the kind of feature set that Skipjack can use gives a
small glimpse into the capabilities of the NSA designers.
- Next message: Moe Trin: "Re: Multi spyware"
- Previous message: Samuël ML Lison: "Re: ZoneAlarm & Mozilla Thunderbird"
- In reply to: Johan Wevers: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Next in thread: IPGrunt: "Re: Top Secret Crypto 3.70"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
