From owner-freebsd-security Sun May 2 2:25:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl (schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl [130.89.238.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B9614D9D for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 02:25:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeroen@vangelderen.org) Received: from ut243008.inbel.utwente.nl ([130.89.243.8]:525 "EHLO vangelderen.org" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by schuimpje.snt.utwente.nl with ESMTP id <7971-20162>; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:25:11 +0200 Message-ID: <372C19F5.625BB2B@vangelderen.org> Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 11:25:09 +0200 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , The Tech-Admin Dude , Brian Beaulieu , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Blowfish/Twofish References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Robert Watson wrote: [...] > I'd recommend against using Blowfish--go for Twofish. Regardless of what you think about Blowfish, recommending Twofish is a very, very bad move. The golden rule in crypto is that trust comes with the age of an algorithm. Twofish is waaaay to young to be trusted, especially since it's an evolutionary improvement over Blowfish which you don't like for some reason. In any case, if you recommend against using Blowfish, what's the reason? Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jeroen@vangelderen.org - 0xC33EDFDE To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message