| Welcome to Crypto. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Algorithm switch; Algorithm: AES-to-Twofish... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 3 2013, 05:57 PM (459 Views) | |
| JOE.TEKK1 | Oct 3 2013, 05:57 PM Post #1 |
|
Elite member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please note: I have seen that Silent Circle will move from AES-256 (Rijndael; from Belgium ) to Twofish ( BT-USA; Schneirer ) . They also want to use Skein instead of SHA-256 . You may find that of interest. Joe ----- |
![]() |
|
| novice | Oct 4 2013, 08:23 AM Post #2 |
|
Super member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't know about this service until I read your posting and then Wikipedia. Do you use their service? Interesting that Wiki says:
This suggests that attempts to organise large-scale encrypting of emails will meet major problems, at least in the U.S. |
![]() |
|
| JOE.TEKK1 | Oct 4 2013, 07:14 PM Post #3 |
|
Elite member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
= Friday, 4 October 2013; 3:12PM New Jersey USA time Novice, Everyone -- Encryption of emails is the <<RESPONSIBILITY>> of the individual ; with support ( to a certain degree ) from others. Silent Circle is <<STILL>> encrypting Text/Chats ( acts like Facsimile/FAX ) . Joe |
![]() |
|
| mok-kong shen | Oct 7 2013, 08:13 PM Post #4 |
|
NSA worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I find it difficult to conceive of reasons to suspect that AES might have backdoors etc. in comparison to Twofish. Personally I tend to think that both are "clean". (I mean the algorithms and the open-source codes that one has carefully verified, not the binaries that one gets from somewhere and that might have been manipulated.) Edited by mok-kong shen, Oct 7 2013, 08:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ribeiro Alvo | Oct 9 2013, 10:24 PM Post #5 |
|
/\ |_ \/ ( )
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
completely agree. |
![]() |
|
| Ribeiro Alvo | Oct 10 2013, 10:40 PM Post #6 |
|
/\ |_ \/ ( )
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But for those who do not know how to program computers, and are most people, what is the solution? |
![]() |
|
| jdege | Oct 11 2013, 06:55 PM Post #7 |
|
NSA worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The real question - do either have "magic numbers" that are not clearly explained? |
| When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl. | |
![]() |
|
| Ribeiro Alvo | Oct 11 2013, 07:58 PM Post #8 |
|
/\ |_ \/ ( )
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I want to believe that mathematics is a science, not some quackery. Or put another way, if the algorithm is well explained, I see no reason to fear it. |
![]() |
|
| jdege | Oct 12 2013, 12:59 AM Post #9 |
|
NSA worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The DES S-boxes involved NSA-selected permutations and provided no explanation of why those particular permutations were chosen. It was always feared that they were chosen because they gave the NSA a backdoor. |
| When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl. | |
![]() |
|
| Ribeiro Alvo | Oct 12 2013, 09:02 AM Post #10 |
|
/\ |_ \/ ( )
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is precisely what I mean. All details of the scheme / algorithm should be very well explained, otherwise, should be avoided. |
![]() |
|
| JOE.TEKK1 | Oct 12 2013, 03:04 PM Post #11 |
|
Elite member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I refer you to the United States National Institute of Standards website ( NIST ) that describes the Advanced Encryption Standard. If you review that, you will understand the sponsorship and the nationalities of the cryptographers. Bruce Shcneirer has made some comments about the complete selection process; and the current state of affairs. Some people will stick with Diffie-Hellman/ElGamal public keys; and keep using AES-256 ( Rijndael ) , and at times may use Twofish also. Some are re-thinking about avoiding Elliptic Curve Crypto public keys. Joe . << Saturday, 12 October 2013; 11:04AM >> |
![]() |
|
| mok-kong shen | Oct 12 2013, 08:41 PM Post #12 |
|
NSA worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is no magic number (in the sense I understand) in AES and the same is with Twofish, if I don't err. On the other hand, unfortunately any design of a practical cipher would (as a result of creativity involved) contain a number of more or less arbitrary decisions to do certain processing (and at the same time not to do certain other eligible alternatives) and so, if questioned to an ever increasing depth, could hardly be explained entirely satisfactorily logically. IMHO this often applies e.g. to key scheduling for most block ciphers. Thus the freedom of backdoors of the algorithm of a cipher couldn't in general be demonstrated with the kind of rigor commonly demanded in pure math in comparison to applied math, which is regrettable but to be accepted in real life. This naturally doesn't mean that one could at any time slight the issue of backdoors in crypto algorithms. (The issue of implantation of backdoors into crypto binaries is of course an entirely different matter.) Edited by mok-kong shen, Oct 13 2013, 09:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · News · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



12:14 AM Jul 11