On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Pete Stephenson <p...@heypete.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Cole <nicholas.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Henry Hertz Hobbit >> <hhhob...@securemecca.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> Paradoxically, AES256 & AES192 had >>> weaknesses that made them less safe than AES (AES-128) several >>> years back. May I humbly suggest TWOFISH or one of the >>> CAMELLLIA ciphers as a first choice UNTIL you determine whether >>> or not the fixes for AES-256 and AES-192 are retroactive? DID >>> THEY GET THEM FIXED? I am just assuming they did but that means >>> I HOPE the older implementation and the newer one can easily be >>> discerned when you do the decipher. >> >> >> [snip] >> >> I was curious about this. The wikipedia page mentions the "Related Key >> Attack" on these cyphers, but is vague about whether they were ever >> fixed. >> >> Does anyone know? >> >> And did fixes make it into the version used by Gnupg? > > Even more importantly, were they ever an issue with GnuPG in the first place? > > That is, does GnuPG generate related keys? > > I was always under the impression that GnuPG randomly generated > session keys rather than creating related session keys; if true, > wouldn't this mean that the related-key attack doesn't apply?
And if that were true, I presume that would mean that the "AES is stronger than AES256" argument would also fall. Or have I misunderstood? N. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
