Re: Are These Algorithms Good?

clark <clark@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:04:06 -0400, "Glenn P.,"
<C128UserDELETE-THIS@xxxxxxx> wrote:

What do people here say of the following encryption algorithms
that I've encountered:

3Way
Diamond II
FROG
Gost
Q128
Safer-SK128
Sapphire II
SCOP
Shark
Skipjack
Square
Tea
Twofish

Which ones, if any, are reputable and believed to be secure?
Which, if any, are snake-oil, or at least questionable? All
and any information and opinions are appreciated!

Despite what other poster's say:
Skipjack is the only reliable one in that list. It was developed by
the NSA and is very versatile. It has 80-bit security which is enough
for today but most would start at 128-bit AES if they could.

?? What study has it received to make you say it is reliable. The whole
effort of which it was a part was shown to be incompetently done.



On to the rest:
Of the rest, Twofish has a good pedigree and was an AES finalist and
would be the listed most would trust if 80-bits were not enough.


Interestingly:
You didn't mention AES (Rijndael) which is "hands down" the one that
everyone in this group would recommend as number one.

You also don't mention 3DES which is probably the most trusted (but
getting old in the tooth) algorithms available, super reliable, and
will provide up to 168-bit security.

It has probably 112 bits-- there are meet-in-the-middle attacks (
expensive) which make the last 56 bits of the key not very userful.
It is also slow. DES was already a slow cypher, and three times per 64 bits
output makes it very slow.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
    ... Which ones, if any, are reputable and believed to be secure? ... Which, if any, are snake-oil, or at least questionable? ... It has 80-bit security which is enough ... for today but most would start at 128-bit AES if they could. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: A doubt...
    ... >> The idea of unicity distance and related possibilities in information ... >> theoretic security often fascinate newcomers to sci.crypt, ... It's not *because* AES doesn't try to be information-theoretically ... secure that we trust it; we trust it for other reasons. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Encrypting binary and text data
    ... I want to encrypt chunks of data that include ascii ... If efficiency is your main concern, then use NES instead of AES. ... If that doesn't sound quite as secure as you would like, ... efficiency for the sake of security. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: DES and 3DES
    ... > I think you misunderstood. ... Security is relative, and we ALL know that 3DES ... > and AES are nowhere near as secure as the MegaQuantum MultiVariable ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: DES and 3DES
    ... > I think you misunderstood. ... Security is relative, and we ALL know that 3DES ... > and AES are nowhere near as secure as the MegaQuantum MultiVariable ...
    (sci.math)