[Cryptography] From Nicaragua to Snowden - why no national standards should be considered in cryptosec

Watson Ladd watsonbladd at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 00:30:54 EST 2016


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 February 2016 at 23:31, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2016 3:06 PM, "Ben Laurie" <ben at links.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 27 February 2016 at 17:04, Stephen Farrell
>> > <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There's that. But "national" is also no good as a label, as
>> >> AES is national and some national algs are less well vetted/known
>> >> than others.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ah, but AES is from the right nation.
>> >
>> > Its a crazy idea, I know, but there might be some nations who are not
so
>> > keen on other nations mandating their crypto.
>>
>> Because Rijndael is such an American name. The AES was the result of an
>> open international competition.
>
> Run and judged by the US.
>
>> Other contests like Nessie have not produced standards that people want.
>
>
> Not run and judged by the US.

If companies actually want to deploy them because they have savings in
speed and power or security gains they will. That's the story of ChaCha20
and Curve25519. That this hasn't really happened with national ciphers
shows the complete absence of a need for them.
>
>>
>> What's the advantage of national ciphers over AES? Just being different?
>
>
> In what sense is AES not a national cipher? Its original name? Seriously?

What changed about the AES when the US standardized it that makes other
countries not want to use it?

>

-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160227/0272d057/attachment.html>


More information about the cryptography mailing list