>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:17:22 +0000
>unknown wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:28:38 -0400
> Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
> > So to be concrete, let me suggest a few modes of operation. I believe
> > I'm competent to implement these:
>
> I think (IMHO) Keccak m
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:28:38 -0400
Nick Mathewson wrote:
> So to be concrete, let me suggest a few modes of operation. I believe
> I'm competent to implement these:
I think (IMHO) Keccak makes many (most?) symmetric encryption modes
obsolete in the near future.
Now Keccak-Hash is SHA-3 winner.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:40:18 -0500
Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > On 2012-03-12, Watson Ladd wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Robert Ransom
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> (The BEAR/LION key would likely be different for each cell that a
> >>>
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:51:00 -0700
coderman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> > ...
> > Therefore, in the context of whether we can expect SHA-3 and/or
> > SHA-256 circuits to come built into our chips in the future, the fact
> > that SHA-256 can be implemented
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0500
Watson Ladd wrote:
> What about this for modification resistance?
> We keep a count of all cells passing and use AES in CTR mode with a 2 part
> counter: the first part the cell counter, the second one a block counter.
> Then to authenticate the cell we can use
