View Single Post
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 7th May 2015
DanBSD DanBSD is offline
New User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9


If logical that is of the existence of more algorithms, especially those that were submitted in the contest to choose the new AES.

And from a security standpoint, the winner would be Serpent, but it turns out that they wanted a fast algorithm and with a good implementation in soft-hard.

They never bothered even to create a set of instructions AES-NI, because it wouldn't bother to create such a thing of something violated? But we would go back to what was.


That was some of the reasons for you to start this thread, you said exactly what i think. It is as i think, they create a system, knowing the vulnerabilities and then disseminated, this makes little sense to me, but it is also logical that themselves you have to protect themselves, it is not logical that they violate a algorithm and implement in their departments, since someone could veneficiarse internally.

That is what I would like to think. But that opening the public in this way, is what I find strange.


Even if a certain attack was not found effective, but foreign mathematicians, not people who work within said nothing, I hope I am not mistaken.


If you look at that book it has been a little time this well. And good thing is a little as i told a mate above, they even have to be protected internally, because violate please note and that a few know and put themselves in danger.

Another question, Putting more functions in the please note, might break your security, no? Who think?

Thanks, for the good response to all.

Reply With Quote