Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis
From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 05/19/03
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- In reply to: JohnTromaville: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:01:41 -0400
JohnTromaville wrote:
> I thought the attack was on a reduced version of SKIPJACK?
That's right.
>Tom St. Denis wrote:
>>They picked 32 rounds because they thought that no
>>attack would approach that many.
That was nonsense. The number of rounds is an aspect
of the encryptor, not necessarily of a method of attack.
The reason 32 rounds were picked is that that many rounds
were necessary to forestall attacks (such as the one
Biham pursued).
> just curious on this one - how does one choose the
> number of rounds when designing a crypto?
There is no simple answer to that, and so far as I am
aware no correct, general methodology for such things
available in the academic community.
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- In reply to: JohnTromaville: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|