Slashdot Mirror
AES Announced as Federal Standard
chekhov writes: "Today NIST has finally announced AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) as a Federal Standard after 4 years of development. See the press release. AES is the replacement of DES and is expected to be used in financial systems and secure networks for up to 20 years. More information on the AES homepage."
Poland got there first, but when the Germans invaded completely ran out of resources and handed all their research over to England. A lot of work further down the line, and we (I'm English) were breaking the 3 wheel standard Enigma within hours of getting the first encrypted transmissions, thanks to Turing's 'bombes' (electro mechanical decrypting devices).
However, when it came to the German naval Enigma, the 4 wheel version, we ground to a halt. We didn't have the resources to build enough hardware to break the crypts within any time that the info would have helped. So we called in the US to help build more gear.. It was a big team effort.
Note however, that the 3rd Reich trusted Enigma utterly. They fell into the trap of thinking they were completely secure, and that was the downfall of Enigma, as it would be of any trusted encryption. Encryption by definition is breakable in a certain length of time. The problem with Enigma was that there were backdoors, such as the fact it never encrypted any letter as itself. The security of AES is currently being hailed as the fact it has a key field 10 to the 21 times larger than 56bit DES. Great. Only an idiot would try to brute force it though, so the number of keys is somewhat arbitrary.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
> There a big ambiguity that I couldn't really sort out while reading these web pages : Is this an Open standard or a Commercial standard ?
It's a US government standard, meaning that all government-related (whatever that means) should use it (or something like that). It's just another algorithm instead of DES/3DES to be used as The Official US Government Encryption Standard.
Some pieces-o'-software, both free and commercial, use Rijndael, but it's not a standard (ISO or ANSI or whatever).
> Will I have to pay royalties if I intend to write AES-compliant programs then sell related services ?
Probably not. There are plenty of free implementations of the Rijndael algorithm, and from what I can figure out, there doesn't seem do be any restrictions to it. From the authour's page:
Rijndael is available for free. You can use it for whatever purposes you want, irrespective of whether it is accepted as AES or not.
Even if the US government puts some kind of export restriction on software using it, it's still very available (in several free (of some kind) implementations) outside US.
NIST too, provide their own reference implementation.
> I actually read in the facts page that the "public" helped building the algorithm and specs but in which way is that AES thing public ?
The algorithm was invented by "the public" (two guys in Belgium), not by NIST or the US government. NIST just selected the one algorithm they considered the most appropriate from the whole lot of available encryption algorithms out there.
There are 010 kinds of people. Those who understand octal, those who don't, and 06 other kinds of morons.
I found several notes on the openssl users list which seem to indicate that AES/Rijndael support will be available in OpenSSL 0.9.7. This has not been released yet, but is reportedly available in the CVS area.
RFC2440, which defines the OpenPGP standard, already reserves 3 AES keys sizes (128, 192, 256-bit).
Gnupg already supports AES in all 3 block sizes and so does 'official' PGP v7.0x.
PGP since v7.x hasn't been open source, so you won't find any details at www.pgpi.org. The best way to add AES support to previous 'open source' versions is to use the CKT builds by Imad. These are still based upon the v6.58 code base but contains dozens of fixes and improvements.
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
>The S-tables were thought to have been chosen to
>make the algorithm easy to break for someone who
>knew the secret.
Yes, this is what was _thought_.
When differential cryptanalysis was discovered in 1991, many DES 'replacements' were completely broken, but DES itself was only weakened, not broken.
It turned out to be those NSA-picked S-boxes that made it much more secure than the alternatives. So, they actualy made the algorithm stronger, not weaker.
(and they had appearently knew about differential cryptanalysis some 20 years before the academic world did. scary, isn't it?)
--
GCP
I think you're confused. RSA claimed, in their Scientific American article at least, that their 100-bit key would take millions of years to break. In fact, advances in factoring algorithms (and to a far less extent, raw computing power) lead to it being broken in less than 20 years. Now the minimal recommended key size is 400 bits longer, amd most of us use keys 900 bits longer.
DES was never expected to have a lifetime longer than 25 years or so. The cryptanalysts who designed DES never heard of Moore's law, and wouldn't have cared about it if they had. They knew that the most important factor was algorithm efficiency, not the raw computing power.
In fact, a study in Programming Pearls a while back compared the effects of improved algorithms vs. improved hardware speed for several historically hard problems. The results were clear - hardware is getting faster, but you could still run circles around the latest supercomputer running 1960s era algorithms with your PDA running current algorithms. (Okay, the original article compared Crays to TRS-80s, but kids today may not know what a trash-80 is.)
The only reason computers seem slower is that they're used to solve far bigger problems. People tend to be willing to spend the same amount of time solving problems, and for a given time O(nlg(n)) has a far larger value of 'n' than O(n^3).
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken