On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
FYI,
Rijndael(128, 128) == AES(128,128)
Rijndael(192, 128 ) != AES (192,128), key schedule have changed
Rijndael(256, 128 ) != AES (192,128), key schedule have changed
Rijndael(x , 160/192/224/256)
--> no counterpart in AES, NIST recommand AES(x ,128)/CBC
We use Rijndael(256,256) for most of our data.
>
> Evan Daniel
