[cryptography] the spell is broken

Kelly John Rose iam at kjro.se
Thu Oct 3 18:08:47 EDT 2013


Not quite.

If people agree on Twofish and a generalized standard outside of NIST,
then if NIST picks it up and agrees as well there isn't much concern.
The problem is with older existing standards or if NIST provides
unexplained changes or magic values to the standard.

On 03/10/2013 4:04 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Reasoning that way, you're very quickly left with not but a tin foil
> hat. Let's say we agree on twofish. then NIST/NSA certifies it for FIPS.
> Are we than taking that as proof it is compromised and figure out
> something else?

-- 
Kelly John Rose
Mississauga, ON
Phone: +1 647 638-4104
Twitter: @kjrose

Document contents are confidential between original recipients and sender.


More information about the cryptography mailing list