1996-04-16 - Re: carrick, Blowfish & the NSA

Header Data

From: K00l Secrets <secret@secret.alias.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bb5c1683234f279c263a351bfa9b853474362b3dd49df57b2d05815b1c6648f0
Message ID: <199604160315.WAA15829@paulsdesk.phoenix.net>
Reply To: <199604141422.KAA05302@jekyll.piermont.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-16 06:59:27 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:59:27 +0800

Raw message

From: K00l Secrets <secret@secret.alias.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:59:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: carrick, Blowfish & the NSA
In-Reply-To: <199604141422.KAA05302@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <199604160315.WAA15829@paulsdesk.phoenix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

In article <Pine.LNX.3.92.960414121820.358A-100000@gak> "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com> writes:

> I haven't heard of any efficient cryptanalysis against Blowfish.  I
> know there are weak keys, but they are difficult to exploit.  16
> round Blowfish can be broken using differential cryptanalysis with
> 2^128+1 chosen plaintexts.

Doesn't this assume known S-boxes, though?  If so, since the S-boxes
are key dependent, is this anything to worry about?