On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland >> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org 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.
