Re: RC4 broken?
From: TC (a@b.c.d)
Date: 02/09/03
- Next message: nobody: "Re: Fletcher Checksum Question"
- Previous message: Scott Fluhrer: "Re: What's the bottom line on RC4??"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Next in thread: John Myre: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Reply: John Myre: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "TC" <a@b.c.d> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 18:41:03 +1030
"Bill Unruh" <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:b21q6p$124$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Louis Granboulan <Louis.Granboulan@ens.fr> writes:
>
> ]Paul Rubin wrote:
> ]> I exchanged some email with Arnold about this and he said that
> ]> dropping bytes is harder to explain to a beginner than repeating the
> ]> key schedule. I couldn't make any sense out of that, but he seemed to
> ]> be speaking out of some kind of experience. Shrug.
>
> ]However, the bias in the second output byte of RC4 is due to the fact
> ]that after the key schedule both indices i and j are set to 0. Repeating
> ]the key schedule may protect against the attack, but good practice is to
> ]begin to output bytes when i and j are at random positions. This is
> ]likely to be the case if you drop the first 256 bytes. That's the reason
> ]why it is the suggested change to RC4.
>
> Yes, I would just make that a change and call it IRC4 (for improved).
(snip)
Er, IARC4! (improved *alleged* RC4)
TC
- Next message: nobody: "Re: Fletcher Checksum Question"
- Previous message: Scott Fluhrer: "Re: What's the bottom line on RC4??"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Next in thread: John Myre: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Reply: John Myre: "Re: RC4 broken?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
