[13481] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Nullsoft's WASTE communication system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Elliott)
Fri Jun 6 15:04:05 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <kjznl4yo92.fsf@romeo.rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:52:28 -0700
To: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>, bear <bear@sonic.net>
From: Kevin Elliott <k-elliott@wiu.edu>
Cc: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>,
<cryptography@metzdowd.com>
At 17:05 -0700 on 5/30/03, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Blowfish has been around longer than Rijndael; I think AES may not yet
>> have gotten as much cryptographic attention as Blowfish's several-year
>> headstart has given it.
>I just looked in citeseer and it seems to me that AES has gotten much
>more attention. It certainly will be getting much more in the future.
>I consider AES best current practice and so do most of the
>professional protocol designers I know. If one has some reason not to
>use AES, then 3DES is the appropriate choice. I can't see any reason
>to choose Blowfish.
Out of curiosity, how does the performance of AES compare to Blowfish
(seeing as how performance would be the obvious advantage of Blowfish
over 3DES)? Also are there any patent/license constraints on AES
(the main reason I think Blowfish has become so common is it's
"public domain" status)?
--
__________________________________________
Kevin Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com>
ICQ#23758827 AIM ID: teargo
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realize the pig is enjoying it.
__________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
