On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote: >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> Author: j16sdiz >> >> >> Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 +0000 (Tue, 13 May 2008) >> >> >> New Revision: 19912 >> >> >> >> >> >> Modified: >> >> >> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael.java >> >> >> Log: >> >> >> No Monte Carlo test for Rijndael >> >> > >> >> > Huh? >> >> >> >> The test output the monte carlo test result, it is supposed to be > compared >> >> with ecb_e_m.txt in the FIPS standard. >> >> >> >> Our implementation is the original Rijndael (not the one in FIPS > standard), >> >> the output does not match ecb_e_m.txt. >> > >> > Is that bad? Presumably changes during the standardisation process were to >> > improve security? >> >> >> >> Just like what NIST did to other cipher, this remain a mystery -- no >> one outside NIST know why. This can be good or bad, depends on the >> conspiracy level. >> >> FYI, NIST once fixed a DES vulnerability before anybody else suspect >> there was a weakness. >> >> The standard AES is not compatible to our Rijndael implementation .... >> I guess it's not worth breaking the backward compatibility in 0.7.1. > > It might be if it's more secure...?
Unless I'm mistaken, the difference between Rijndael and AES relates to things like specified block sizes and not the core crypto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijndael#Description_of_the_cipher Evan Daniel _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
