6
$\begingroup$

The title of this thread pretty much sums up what I'm asking: what is the best encryption to use out of the three — Blowfish, Twofish, or Threefish?

$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ and why not Rijndael ? Why not Norx ? Why not Keyak ? Why not Ketje ? Why not Chacha ? ... To my knowledge none of the aforementioned cipher (in your question and in my comment) are considered academically broken.. Also you have this : crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/5287/… $\endgroup$ – Biv Dec 21 '16 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ I know they are broken in some ways, but I would just like to know which one is the best to use (by best i mean in security) $\endgroup$ – Fumerian Gaming Dec 21 '16 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ Could you define "broken in some ways" ? $\endgroup$ – Biv Dec 21 '16 at 16:07
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ What you should do is develop your application to not be bound to a specific cipher. $\endgroup$ – mikeazo Dec 21 '16 at 16:24
  • 4
20
$\begingroup$

TL;DR: Twofish and Treefish are fine.

It is not the best idea to have the cipher you want to use hardcoded because you can't upgrade easily when one of them is broken. to quote mikeazo in the comments:

What you should do is develop your application to not be bound to a specific cipher.

Twofish

In 1999, Niels Ferguson published an impossible differential attack that breaks six rounds out of 16 of the 256-bit key version using $2^{256}$ steps.

As of 2000, the best published cryptanalysis on the Twofish block cipher is a truncated differential cryptanalysis of the full 16-round version. The paper claims that the probability of truncated differentials is $2^{−57.3}$ per block and that it will take roughly $2^{51}$ chosen plaintexts (32 petabytes worth of data) to find a good pair of truncated differentials.

Bruce Schneier responds in a 2005 blog entry that this paper does not present a full cryptanalytic attack, but only some hypothesized differential characteristics: "But even from a theoretical perspective, Twofish isn't even remotely broken. There have been no extensions to these results since they were published in 2000."

https://www.schneier.com/academic/twofish/
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/twofish_cryptan.html

Threefish

In October 2010, an attack that combines rotational cryptanalysis with the rebound attack was published. The attack mounts a known-key distinguisher against 53 of 72 rounds in Threefish-256, and 57 of 72 rounds in Threefish-512. It also affects the Skein hash function. This is a follow-up to the earlier attack published in February, which breaks 39 and 42 rounds respectively. In response to this attack, the Skein team tweaked the rotation constants used in Threefish and thereby the key schedule constants for round 3 of the NIST hash function competition.

In 2009, a related key boomerang attack against a reduced round Threefish version was published. For the 32-round version, the time complexity is $2^{226}$ and the memory complexity is $2^{12}$ for the 33-round version, the time complexity is $2^{352.17}$ with a negligible memory usage. The attacks also work against the tweaked version of Threefish: for the 32-round version, the time complexity is $2^{222}$ and the memory complexity is $2^{12}$ for the 33-round version, the time complexity is $2^{355.5}$ with a negligible memory usage.

http://www.skein-hash.info/ (the design of Threefish is based on it).

Blowfish

At this point, though, I'm amazed it's still being used. If people ask, I recommend Twofish instead. — Bruce Schneier, Blowfish's creator, 2007

Swordfish

                         GABRIEL
              Here's the deal. I need a worm,
              Stanley. A hydra, actually. A
              multi-headed worm to break an
              encryption and then sniff out
              latent digital footprints
              throughout an encrypted network.

                            STANLEY
              What kind of cypher?

                            GABRIEL
              Vernam encryption.

                            STANLEY
              A Vernam's impossible. Its key
              code is destroyed upon
              implementation. Not to mention
              being a true 128 bit encryption.

                            GABRIEL
              Actually, we're talking 512 bit.

source

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think Swordfish was actually asked for :P $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Dec 21 '16 at 16:29
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ couldn't help it. sorry. v_v" I had to have the whole fish family. :P $\endgroup$ – Biv Dec 21 '16 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ It's simple. Twofish. Threefish. Blowfish. Swordfish. It's just like Dr. Seuss! $\endgroup$ – Zizouz212 Dec 22 '16 at 0:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Redfish Bluefish! $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Dec 22 '16 at 4:25
9
$\begingroup$

If you want to choose a fishy cipher by Bruce et al, I'd go for Twofish.

Reason:

  • Blowfish is not recommended anymore because of the small block size of 64 bits, among others. Even Bruce is not recommending it anymore - it's an old but unbroken cipher;
  • Twofish is a relatively modern 128 bit block cipher which is a drop in for AES - for the simple reason that it was designed to be AES;
  • Threefish is mainly used as tweakable block cipher construction within the Skein hash function; it has a large block size and high number of (relatively simple) rounds;
  • Dopefish is actually not a block cipher but a character in Commander Keen.

Threefish is too specialized and not explicitly defined for block cipher modes of operation. Furthermore, Threefish has a block size different from AES candidates (256 or even 512 bits instead of 128). This makes it less likely that you will find it in many cryptographic libraries and makes it harder to switch to / from other AES candidates or AES itself.

The fact that it is tweakable and has a large block size may make Threefish more applicable for state-of-the art schemes - but I don't think that's what you're are after.

Blowfish and Dopefish are right out, leaving Twofish.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ When I discussed this very shortly with Bruce Schneier he wasn't showing interest in using Threefish directly as a cipher (I had an early, independent, implementation of Skein / Threefish). $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Dec 22 '16 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ Then again, he was probably focused on Skein at the time, it was at the start of the SHA-3 competition. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Dec 22 '16 at 11:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'd consider Threefish for full-disk-encryption. It's naturally tweakable, so it doesn't need XTS mode and the large block-size slightly improves security. $\endgroup$ – CodesInChaos Dec 24 '16 at 13:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CodesInChaos AES with AES-NI in EME2 mode would likely be faster than Threefish for full disk encryption, despite the fact that EME2 requires two passes of the cipher. $\endgroup$ – forest Oct 6 '18 at 4:29
-3
$\begingroup$

I prefer blowfish because the key length is 448 bits. But due to it`s small block size (64 bits), I recommend using CBC mode.

I prefer blowfish to AES because AES is the government standard and I don`t trust the government. For instance, the old government standard, DES, was 56 bits. At the time DES was created, it was strong enough to not be broken by a PC, but weak enough to be broken by the NSA. The government has a history of making powerful encryption illegal.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ a) There's no point to more than 256 keybits. b) small blocksizes are bad, really bad, even more so with CBC (which suffers from collisions as opposed to CTR). c) AES is a standard that was developed by belgians and just taken up by the US government. It survived more than 16 years of intense academical review. d) Making something illegal isn't the same as subverting it. e) The US government itself uses AES. $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Dec 23 '16 at 22:01
-3
$\begingroup$

I would say Two Fish although I still love Blow Fish and I love the variable block size in Three Fish but everybody wants speed and Three Fish is a little slower;it is sad when speed beats security.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.