On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote: > >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland > >> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote: > >> >> Author: j16sdiz > >> >> Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 +0000 (Tue, 13 May 2008) > >> >> New Revision: 19912 > >> >> > >> >> Modified: > >> >> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael.java > >> >> Log: > >> >> No Monte Carlo test for Rijndael > >> > > >> > Huh? > >> > >> The test output the monte carlo test result, it is supposed to be compared > >> with ecb_e_m.txt in the FIPS standard. > >> > >> Our implementation is the original Rijndael (not the one in FIPS standard), > >> the output does not match ecb_e_m.txt. > > > > Is that bad? Presumably changes during the standardisation process were to > > improve security? > >> > > Just like what NIST did to other cipher, this remain a mystery -- no > one outside NIST know why. This can be good or bad, depends on the > conspiracy level. > > FYI, NIST once fixed a DES vulnerability before anybody else suspect > there was a weakness. > > The standard AES is not compatible to our Rijndael implementation .... > I guess it's not worth breaking the backward compatibility in 0.7.1.
It might be if it's more secure...? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/37c3d1d8/attachment.pgp>
