> knew about another attack), and they reduced the key size to 56 bit so
> they could crack it with brute force in massively parallell hardware.
Umm, no, part of the *problem* with lucifer is that the 128 bit key
had symmetries that made it's strength *trivially* less than 64 bit
and as I recall
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> :
> :> IBM developed a cypher called "lucifer". The NSA examined it,
> :> recommended some changes to the algorithm, and the result was DES.
> :
> :Changes which, we now know, *strengthened* it against differ
Mark Eichin wrote:
>> IBM developed a cypher called "lucifer". The NSA examined it,
>> recommended some changes to the algorithm, and the result was DES.
>
>Changes which, we now know, *strengthened* it against differential
>cryptanalysis (which they new about in the 70's, and called the
>"slidin
On 25 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
:
:> IBM developed a cypher called "lucifer". The NSA examined it,
:> recommended some changes to the algorithm, and the result was DES.
:
:Changes which, we now know, *strengthened* it against differential
:cryptanalysis (which they new about in the 70's, and
> IBM developed a cypher called "lucifer". The NSA examined it,
> recommended some changes to the algorithm, and the result was DES.
Changes which, we now know, *strengthened* it against differential
cryptanalysis (which they new about in the 70's, and called the
"sliding attack", if I remember
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Shaya Potter wrote:
>
> :On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> :
> :> The problem with SHA-1 is that it is a U.S. Federal Information Processing
> :> Standard, and I don't trust that the U.S. government will not place expo
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Shaya Potter wrote:
:On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
:
:> The problem with SHA-1 is that it is a U.S. Federal Information Processing
:> Standard, and I don't trust that the U.S. government will not place export
:> restrictions on it. I'm also wary of U.S. FIPS for th
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The problem with SHA-1 is that it is a U.S. Federal Information Processing
> Standard, and I don't trust that the U.S. government will not place export
> restrictions on it. I'm also wary of U.S. FIPS for the same reason I'm wary
> about DES - various spy
8 matches
Mail list logo