1996-04-14 - Re: carrick, Blowfish & the NSA

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Message Hash: 616d0ddfbd9f9cdff88c9db4f7595d682368dcbba765870455c513463e615b99
Message ID: <199604142002.QAA05493@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9604141322.A21250-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-14 22:52:32 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 06:52:32 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 06:52:32 +0800
To: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: carrick, Blowfish & the NSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9604141322.A21250-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
Message-ID: <199604142002.QAA05493@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca writes:
> If it's the one that's in applied crypto 2 (p.339) and ddj, then it's only
> partial crack on a low number of rounds (according to AC2). Schneier still
> thought it was secure at the time of the publishing of AC2, but then he
> may be biased. (and since this is crypto why not be paranoid, eh?)

Its only the partial crack, from what I know. It still makes me
nervous, and besides there are very good cryptosystems like 3DES
that are available and well studied.