Re: Twofish / Rijndael

May be. As I said, I did not see a justification of the final choice.

- Wolfgang

Rony Shapiro wrote:

> Hi Wolfgang,
>  
> From the NIST's report in which they announce their selection of 
> Rijndael (http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/aes/round2/r2report.pdf), 
> p.91
>  
> "Each of the finalist algorithms appears to offer adequate security, 
> and each offers a considerable number of advantages. Any of the 
> finalists could serve admirably as the AES."
>  
> The full report has a fairly detailed description of the analysis 
> methodology and results.
>  
>     enjoy,
>  
>         Rony
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* [email protected]
>     [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
>     Of *Wolfgang Keller
>     *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:46 AM
>     *To:* [email protected]
>     *Subject:* [Passwordsafe-devel] Twofish / Rijndael
>
>>Since Twofish was also an AES finalist, and since it
>>did not lose for reasons of security, I can assume that it's strength is at
>>least comparable to Rijndael. 
>>
>
>     Of course not little of your intent to use Twofish goes to respect
>     Bruce Schneier who is of the party here - this seems fair enough
>     to me! :)
>
>     But still, at this occasion I'ld like to ask about a possible
>     comparison between those two AES "finalists". I once searched the
>     NIST pages and elsewhere for a technical or practical
>     justification of the "winner" choice, but found none. Is there
>     anything that can be said on proof grounds about weaknesses and
>     strengths of both algorithms in respect to security in application
>     cases or in general? - Are both held as equivalent or is Rijndael
>     clearly the better?
>
>     - Wolfgang
>
>     P.S.  Please give me note if this smail causes list administrative
>     problems. I walk from the assumption that I am currently using my
>     registered address.
>
>