Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Simon Johnson <simon.johnson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:45:26 -0800 (PST)
People need to separate what feels good to what actually is good. And
there are in fact good reasons not to homebrew a multi-cipher solution
up yourself. So all in all it's better to stick to known usage models
and/or protocols.
You're obviously not smart enough to be a cryptographer.
AES is horribly weak. I personally use a 32 round fiestel with an f-
function comprising two random 32x32 bit permuations, mixed with a
PHT. The round keys are chosen entirely at random. This eliminates the
need for those pesky key schedules, which seem to be the source of so
many breaks.
In a world with ubiquitous, cheap RAM. Why would I settle for these
inferior ciphers with such a clear algebraic structure?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Tom St Denis
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- References:
- Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Michael B Allen
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Tom St Denis
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: unruh
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- From: Tom St Denis
- Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- Next by Date: Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- Next by thread: Re: Is encrypting twice much more secure?
- Index(es):