[13385] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Nullsoft's WASTE communication system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Zooko)
Sun Jun 1 16:43:32 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: John Kelsey <kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: bear <bear@sonic.net>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>,
Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: Message from John Kelsey <kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com>
of "Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:51:14 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20030601104721.00a05490@pop.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 16:31:57 -0400
From: Zooko <zooko@zooko.com>
What do you folks think about Anubis [1] ?
I don't understand the maths, but I would *like* to think that Rijndael's
positive results (mostly, its lack of negative results) would apply to Anubis
while Rijndael's negatives (such as the hypothetical algebraic solution)
wouldn't.
Regards,
Zooko
http://zooko.com/
^-- under re-construction: some new stuff, some broken links
[1] http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/paulobarreto/AnubisPage.html
> AES has gotten a lot of attention, and right now, it's the high-prestige
> target. (Among other things, it was clearly a front-runner in the AES
> process from the beginning, and all of us who'd designed other algorithms
> spent a lot of time trying to beat up on it.) Blowfish has been around
> longer, but has probably had fewer people spend lots of time trying to
> break it. The still-unresolved question is whether those equation-solving
> attacks can really be used against AES, and there doesn't seem to be anyone
> who's completely confident of the answer to that question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
