Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest
- From: Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:17:24 GMT
ggr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Rose) writes:
In article <tGvxl.19085$PH1.296@edtnps82>,
Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is RC4 more or less secure than AES? I doubt that any reputable
cryptographer would make a pronouncement.
I don't know if I count as reputable, but I would
certainly make the pronouncement that RC4 is
currently thought to be much weaker than AES. RC4
has distinguishers at about 2^32 bytes of output,
whereas AES has no known weaknesses worse than
Much weaker? On what basis?
Distingushers do not imply attacks. They may make you worry. AES has
complexity and slow speed, which means it will not be used when it should
be, and thus the security is be 0. Security is NOT just a matter of
technical features, but the whole security apparatus, including the user.
Now you are still going to say that RC4 is less secure than AES?
Your comments sound like "That ford has a chip in the paint while that
chevy does not, and thus the chevy is a better car."
232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au
- Prev by Date: Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest
- Next by Date: Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest
- Previous by thread: Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest
- Next by thread: Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest