lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue Nov 1 18:11:04 2005 From: bmenrigh at ucsd.edu (Brandon Enright) Subject: Comparing Algorithms On The List OfHard-to-brut-force? Brute forcing an algorithm suggests that you are not attacking a weakness or known flaw in the algorithm but rather just running through the keyspace trying to recover the plaintext. In that case, whichever allows you to use the most bits is what you want. IIRC, there aren't any good known attacks against Blowfish, AES, or Twofish so the *RIGHT* algorithm is whatever works best for your application. Also, your encrypt-decrypt-encrypt choices may be "more" secure from a pure brute force perspective but the marginal security they add doesn't negate the difficulty of key management. You should look into Bruce Schneier's book, "Applied Cryptography" (ISBN: 0471117099) for an excellent treatment on the subject. Brandon Enright Bipin Gautam wrote: > hello list, > > Which Algorithm in the list is hard hard (more resource/computation > consuming) to brute-force... (in order?) considering all other factor > 'ALMOST' similar? > > views? > ---------- > Blowfish > AES > Twofish > AES-BLOWFISH > Serpant > CAST5 > AES-Twofish > Serpant-AES > AES-BLOWFISH-SERPANT > Twofish-SERPANT > Triple DES > AES-Twofish-Serpant > Serpant-Twofish-AES > > > * Feel free to discuss algorithms NOT LISTED here and also the ones > used by FILE-COMPRESSION utilities ??? > > Even if you know a geleral statistic abt. a few of these or any > experience/info please share. I'm trying to draw a nice statistic BUT > couldn't find it elsewhere. > > -- > Bipin Gautam > http://bipin.tk >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists