Sujet : Re: BridgeWorks
De : arne (at) *nospam* vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajhøj)
Groupes : comp.os.vmsDate : 24. Jul 2024, 01:41:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v7pik9$1dvlh$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/23/2024 8:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:07 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
In article <v7n59g$11h0t$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
D'Oliveiro) wrote:
The original recommendation was to stick with AES-128, and not bother
with AES-192 or AES-256; as far as I know that hasn't changed.
>
That very definitely depends on your use case. My first one, back in
about 2012, was protecting archives of source code that would still be
valuable now. AES-256 was a no-brainer.
The thing is, AES-256 showed signs of some weaknesses (some kind of
collisions/congestion in the bit-swizzling somewhere) that AES-128 does
not suffer from.
The related key attack published in 2009 only impacted AES-192 and
AES-256.
Related key attacks are interesting among cryptologists, but their
practical impact are not big - we are not supposed to use related
keys.
Arne
BridgeWorks
Re: BridgeWorks