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

Header Data

From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bac0443cebdd670d0919ae5ab37c31d80fc6128351c378a3223a0c42d02cfd29
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9604141414.B21250-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
Reply To: <199604140849.EAA05136@jekyll.piermont.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-14 21:05:27 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:05:27 +0800

Raw message

From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:05:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: carrick, Blowfish & the NSA
In-Reply-To: <199604140849.EAA05136@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604141414.B21250-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

 Jerry Whiting writes:
 > One reason we chose to use Blowfish as the basis for carrick is that
 > it _is_ a new algorithm.  One has to assume that the NSA et al. has
 > tools optimized to crack DES and possibly IDEA/RSA.  At least let's
 > give them something else to sweat over.

Algorithms die. If you want to publish and implement an API that will last,
try to improve on of the many multi-algorithm specs that are already out 
there. If the next round of research kills one particular algorithm, your 
work will then still not be wasted. (Apologies for writing something so 
obvious and general.)