RC4 should have been retired a decade ago, that it has not is due solely to
the undereducated going with whatever's fastest. It's time we allowed RC4
to stay dead.
Joe
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
another contender (or could-be contender):
http://www.cryptophone.de/products/CPG10/index.html
(open source and built by people like rop gonggrijp and barry wels)
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:45:15PM -0400, John Ioannidis wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:19:38AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
On 5/23/06, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AES is new, and people keep claiming progress towards
breaking it, without however, so far producing any
breaks.
RC4 is old and has numerous known weaknesses, which are
tricky to code around, and have caught many an
implementor - notice for
--
James A. Donald
AES is new, and people keep claiming progress towards
breaking it, without however, so far producing any
breaks.
RC4 is old and has numerous known weaknesses, which
are tricky to code around, and have caught many an
implementor - notice for example Wifi. But these
--
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
RC4 should have been retired a decade ago,
Why?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
pvLUSroPw35whI+/0Tq1IYPZh/GDEidGMu+4KvZc
4zyBqLBt4fFho62NSUZuECGjiLrFpqppx7lXuvebv
- Original Message -
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [!! SPAM] Re: Is AES better than RC4
--
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
RC4 should have been retired a decade ago,
Why?
It is in general distuingable from random, actually quite quickly.
The first few bytes are so
