Re: Modification on AES
- From: Globemaker <alanfolmsbee@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:16:01 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 24, 8:34 am, McDohl:
The two major concerns of AES is its weak key schedule and its algebraic
simplicity, correct?
No. There are higher level concerns than the algorithm. For example,
why would people with secrets want the efficiency of AES rather than
the security of a "LONG KEY CRYPTOSYSTEM"? Rijndael was chosen as the
best of class, where the class was a collection of 12 efficient
algorithms. All candidates were prohibited from creating a standard
algorithm using key lengths that reflect the state of the art of
semiconductor hardware. We can call that "key schedule weakness" by
using the most liberal interpretation of your first question.
I'm no expert, but would replacing rijndaels key
schedule & s-box with something like blowfishes method help?
Yes, it would help, in some dimension. This incremental "help" is not
as practical as the vast benefits from using a long key algorithm like
scott19u.zip
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Modification on AES
- From: Joseph Ashwood
- Re: Modification on AES
- From: Richard Outerbridge
- Re: Modification on AES
- References:
- Modification on AES
- From: McDohl
- Modification on AES
- Prev by Date: Re: Modification on AES
- Next by Date: Re: Modification on AES
- Previous by thread: Re: Modification on AES
- Next by thread: Re: Modification on AES
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|