Timeline for Are block ciphers still relevant in 2024?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8 at 1:03 | comment | added | uk-ny |
Why chacha20 is more a stream-cipher than AES-GCM? Both have a state where a round function mixes a key, and some other data, and the encryption is the same: the result of the mixing (of the length of the state) is xored with the plaintext. If you call chacha20 a stream cipher, so is AES-GCM.
|
|
| Apr 2 at 8:03 | comment | added | samuel-lucas6 | @kodlu I mean unkeyed permutations, which seems to be called permutation-based crypto. Fair point, but there have been a lot of hash functions/MACs/AEADs based on them now. They've won the SHA-3, CAESAR, and LWC competitions. | |
| Apr 2 at 5:38 | comment | added | kodlu | this question reminded me of a keynote by Adi Shamir ("Are Stream Ciphers Dead?") from a conference (Asiacrypt in early 2000's [Queenstown?]). Then again a recurring title in Information Theory symposia used to be "Is Coding (Error Correction, for clarity) Dead?". Yes, things evolve but block ciphers will not disappear | |
| Apr 2 at 5:35 | comment | added | kodlu | @samuel-lucas6, aren't all block ciphers based on permutations? and I think it's too optimistic to say sponge/duplex is well understood and it's strength quantified, which the rest of your comment somewhat contradicts. It's simply not been long enough time to do this | |
| Apr 1 at 22:21 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | I love those because they are very flexible but commonly we only get some hash functions and such. Without a clear business reason to move on... fortunately they are also included in e.g. PCQ and such. Would love a 2/3 algorithm framework. | |
| Apr 1 at 18:36 | comment | added | samuel-lucas6 | I think permutation-based crypto is the future. The sponge/duplex construction and duplex-style constructions. Much nicer to implement, simple to understand, well studied at this point, and they can be very performant. However, the security level is rather confusing as different people claim different things, with it being difficult to keep up with the papers and the papers generally not aiming for readability from what I've seen. That could be better explained somewhere. | |
| Apr 1 at 18:19 | answer | added | b degnan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 1 at 17:55 | comment | added | kelalaka | ChaCha is built for CPU friendly, however, there is not ChaCha support in CPUs. In hardware, ChaCha will beat AES, IMHO if one is ever built. | |
| Apr 1 at 17:37 | comment | added | Mr. B | @kelalaka But does AES-NI beat a hardware implementation of chacha20? | |
| Apr 1 at 17:12 | history | edited | kelalaka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Apr 1 at 14:38 | history | edited | Maarten Bodewes♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 1 at 9:33 | comment | added | kelalaka | AES has hardware support (called AES-NI) that beats ChaCha20 in hardware where almost all CPU's has it. AES is also a NIST standard, meaning one must comply to work with the government. There are other advantages listed here. | |
| Apr 1 at 8:01 | history | asked | Mr. B | CC BY-SA 4.0 |