On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, hal at finney.org wrote: <snip> > Java implementations of all the ciphers are available at the NIST site, > although they might require some restructuring to be suitable for our > use.
This is another reason to go with an older algorithm, imho. It is very easy for anyone writing a client to find a free implementation of Blowfish is just about any language. On the other hand, maybe that is just being lazy. They are not that hard to implement/port. > Twofish is not a bad choice for now; I'd guess it has maybe a 30-40% > chance of being chosen. Rijndael would rank a little higher, Serpent > a little lower. I would avoid the non-AES candidates at this point, > unless we just want to put something together quickly. Whatever cipher > we use, we should design the system to allow a change later. I'm assuming total overhaul later... > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
