Re: Conficker C and Ron Rivest
- From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:14:40 +0200
Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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."
Wouldn't "That ford needs refuelling every 2^32 thous, whereas the
chevy needs refuelling every 2^64 thous" be more useful as an analogy?
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
-- Dave Seaman (sci.math, 19 Mar 2009)
- 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