[5334] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Proposal (was Summary re: /dev/random)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Rose)
Tue Aug 3 19:23:07 1999
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:19:08 +1000
To: bram <bram@gawth.com>
From: Greg Rose <ggr@qualcomm.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9908011930420.11103-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
At 19:49 1/08/99 -0700, bram wrote:
>No, block ciphers are weak against related-key attacks, which happen all
>over the place in the threat model on SRNGs.
I think this statement is overly general. Most of the AES candidates appear
to have taken this into consideration, for example. There is nothing
inherent in the concept of a block cipher which would imply that there
would be a weakness against related key attacks; however it is true that
many key scheduling algorithms have been too simplistic in the past.
Greg.
Greg Rose INTERNET: ggr@Qualcomm.com
Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9181-4851 FAX: +61-2-9181-5470
Suite 410, Birkenhead Point, http://people.qualcomm.com/ggr/
Drummoyne NSW 2047 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
