On 1/3/06, Sebastian Rother <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Blowfish is secure but Twofish is faster and as secure as Blowfish. wrong. apples are as fast as tables. bluefish encrypts faster than twofish. don't know about rekeying etc.
> At least if there some quant. computers 128Bit will not save ya day > anymore. quantum computers are the real big buzzword to scare people into irrational behaviour. nobody knows whether or when quantum computer will be able to brute force 128 bit keys. and whether twofish will save you. > Blowfish is a good compromise but Twofish would be indeed also neat too > because it's faster (importent for data-encryption) in software then > AES (Rijandel). twofish encrypts faster than aes-256 and slower than aes-128. but I don't give a shit, whether it is faster, as long it is fast enough. > Or just a way to encrypt the disks where I could choose some parameters > of the algorithm (Bits, Rounds..)... yeah, that is relly stupid. how to put your foot before your gun. > Bruce Schneier wouldn't develop an algorithm if he would still think > that Blowfish (an algorithm from 1993 and puplished 1994) would still > be the best choice for the next 10-30 years. because he is bruce schneier? blowfish and twofish have partly different applications, different considerations how to implement in hardware. twofish was designed for aes, blowfish not. btw. bruce schneier never said blowfish would be the best choice. as far as anybody knows, blowfish is a strong cipher with nobody having an idea how to break it. --knitti
