Timeline for After 20 years of AES, what are the retrospective changes that should have been made?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 20, 2021 at 9:20 | history | suggested | user80567 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed grammar
|
| Jan 20, 2021 at 8:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 20, 2021 at 9:20 | |||||
| Jan 19, 2021 at 19:59 | comment | added | kelalaka |
@Fractalic that is true, however, we still have a PRF candidate. Consider that there was a competition for PRF based encryption and where will be the research. Besides, I don't see that is misleading, it is an answer to woulda, coulda, shoulda
|
|
| Jan 19, 2021 at 19:52 | comment | added | Fractalice | "We can live with a PRF" is misleading. Building PRFs from scratch seems harder than building PRPs. The mentioned Chacha is obtained from a permutation P via the feed forward: $x \mapsto x\oplus P(x)$, and this has bound $2^{n/2}$. What saves it is $n=512$. | |
| Jan 19, 2021 at 13:28 | history | edited | kelalaka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
polish
|
| Jan 19, 2021 at 0:03 | history | edited | kelalaka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 22:43 | comment | added | kelalaka | @forest Thanks for pointing that, it uses CTR, too, also, the CBC-MAC of CCM doesn't need a PRP. | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 22:39 | comment | added | forest | CCM in TLS is useful for embedded devices that have hardware-accelerated AES instructions, which is really the only situation where CCM might be faster than GCM. | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 22:02 | comment | added | kelalaka | TLS CCM? Who uses it? | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 21:03 | history | answered | kelalaka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |