On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the difference [between LRW and EME] is the level of granularity.
With 4KB LBA's the difference in granularity is 256 fold, not a
trivial
amount.
On this you and I agree. When the decision was made to shelve EME a
4k sector was not as assumed as it is now.
There are other alternatives, too, which
are much better in this regard. I do not insist on reviving EME,
I am excited that a 4k "EME like" algorithm (I seem to recall that
there were 2 proposed in addition to EME that were either royalty
free or claim to donate the IP to the standard). I very much
recommend that you work with on this idea and bring a proposal. The
requirements are that the mode be written up, a sketch of a proof
(that needs to be completed and published at a tier 1 conference),
test vectors and IP statement citing prior art. Sample code is a
definite plus.
I would like to hear a consensus from the other members that a new
PAR P1619a for large block encryption would be warranted? My vote is
yes.
why should we spend our time on
standardizing something we would never use?
By "we" you mean Seagate/Maxtor? There are others in this community
that are implementing LRW that believe that the traffic analysis
vulnerability of LRW is OK.
We (the cumulative P1619 based on several group votes) are working on
LRW -because- it is the lightest weight thing that we could do. If
you believe there is a mode that is lower weight then (I don't think
I am being presumptuous in suggesting that) we are all ears.
Thanks
jim
