On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 16:34, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > And I'm fairly certain blowfish did get a lot of attention. And since > bcrypt is reasonably popular, I'd imagine blowfish *still* gets > attention from the cryptographic community.
The security of bcrypt is almost completely unrelated to the security of blowfish as an encrpytion cipher. > My understanding is that actually, blowfish is significantly slower. > Mainly because of the setup required for each new key. I seem to recall > that was part of why blowfish didn't become AES. blowfish was never submitted as an entry for AES. Being a 64-bit cipher, it wasn't even eligible.
