Re: RE: Rijndael

[Steve Poirot <poirotsj () info-integrity com>]

 There were some requirements concerning the algorithm's ability to run 
in confined environments, with regard to both memory and processing 
power.  I believe the ability or run on a smart card was one of the 
concerns.  Here's a link to a report on the selection process, including 
how the various algorithm's came out against the original evaluation 
criteria: http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/aes/round2/r2report.pdf


Ben Laurie wrote:

> Timmah wrote:
>
>  
>
> > > > > Yes, it was, Belgian or Indian, I think.  I didn't mention it becuse I
> > > > > couldn't remember how to spell it ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > But since it's now the US's AES standard, who knows how strong it is...
> > > > >          
> > > > The designers are Belgian (Flemish).  Not to denigrate them or their work,
> > > > I believe that it was not the strongest of the five AES finalists, and
> > > > this was demonstrated during the last few months before selection.  You
> > > > can interpret that however you want.
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > There were other factors in the selection process, not just cryptographic
> > > strength. And some weaknesses have been fixed later.
> > >      
> > I maintain that the AES selection committee didn't weight factors sanely.
> > Overall security of algorithms in different modes of operation should have
> > been a deal-breaking factor and it was instead sacrificed for speed and
> > other considerations.  That is just a fact.
> >    
>
> IIRC, a key criterion was key scheduling speed. Forgive me for being
> suspicious, but that sounds to me like "we'd like brute force to be
> efficient, please".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
>
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature