On 10/6/2013 12:17 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
Last week, the American TV show Elementary (a TV who-done-it) was
about the murder of two mathematicians who were working on proof of
P=NP. The implications to crypto, and being able to crack into
servers was covered. It was mostly accurate, up until
On 10/1/2013 2:34 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
What I don't understand here is why the process of selecting a
standard algorithm for cryptographic primitives is so highly focused
on speed. ~
What makes you think Keccak is faster than the alternatives that were
not selected? My implementations
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801
Thunderbird/17.0.8
Reply-To: jam...@echeque.com
On 2013-09-08 3:48 AM, David Johnston wrote:
Claiming the NSA colluded with intel to backdoor RdRand is also to
accuse me personally of having colluded with the NSA in producing
Leichter, Jerry wrote:
| Jon Callas wrote:
|
|
| Moreover, AES-256 is 20-ish percent slower than AES-128.
| Compared to AES-128, AES-256 is 140% of the rounds to encrypt 200% as much
| data.
AES-256 has a 256-bit key but exactly the same 128-bit block as AES-128
(and AES-192, for that
Jon Callas wrote:
Moreover, AES-256 is 20-ish percent slower than AES-128.
Compared to AES-128, AES-256 is 140% of the rounds to encrypt 200% as
much data. So when implemented in hardware, AES-256 is substantially faster.
AES-256 - 18.26 bits per round
AES-128 - 12.8 bits per round
I
Joachim Strombergson wrote:
Aloha!
I don't know if you have seen this, but ISO rejected the WAPI standard
proposal, opting instead for 802.11i/WPA2.
http://eet.com/news/design/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502994
How terrible, AES instead of the secret sauce-cipher. ,-)
WAPI is
