RE: Next-Generation Encryption Algorithm Camellia
Based on Moore's Law, this means it will be secure on computers roughly 10,000 times more powerful than today's systems. How likely is that? Its not hard to imagine, if all we're talking about is brute force attacks. Those are essentially the numbers I came up with as well. However (and I admit to being fairly new to this), how many current schemes can be broken solely through brute force? Are any of them vulnerable to more elegant (albeit computationally intensive) attacks? Jarrod
RE: Next-Generation Encryption Algorithm Camellia
Those are essentially the numbers I came up with as well. However (and I admit to being fairly new to this), how many current schemes can be broken solely through brute force? Are any of them vulnerable to more elegant (albeit computationally intensive) attacks? You miss the point. Any system can be broken by brute force; the notion of a more elegant attack that will also take more time is nonexistent. Brute force is always the worst-case breaking time, so anything that is considered 'more elegant' will be doable in faster than brute force time. I said "more elegant (albeit computationally intensive) attacks", not more elegant and longer attacks. There are oftentimes more than one way to crack a code, and some of them are more elegant and, while faster, are still computationally intensive.
Re: Next-Generation Encryption Algorithm Camellia
Judging by the block diagram, it's a feistel network, using linear subkeys, which is quite often a problem. Thanks but until I see the details of the algorithm, I'm not gonna use it. Joe
