From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 17:47:35 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCD216A4CE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:47:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from marlena.vvi.at (marlena.vvi.at [208.252.225.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DE043D2D for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:47:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from www@marlena.vvi.at) Received: from marlena.vvi.at (localhost.marlena.vvi.at [127.0.0.1]) by marlena.vvi.at (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j22LqToH084489; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:52:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from www@marlena.vvi.at) Received: (from www@localhost) by marlena.vvi.at (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j22LqJTw084488; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:52:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from www) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:52:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503022152.j22LqJTw084488@marlena.vvi.at> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk From: "ALeine" cc: tech-security@NetBSD.org cc: elric@imrryr.org cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: tls@rek.tjls.com cc: crypto@metzdowd.com Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:47:35 -0000 phk@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: > In message <20050303154847.GA3454@panix.com>, Thor Lancelot Simon > writes: > > Where I come from "home-grown" is not derogative. All > cryptosystems are by necessity home-grown for somebody somewhere. I second that, standards do not come into existence out of thin air and we might get to see the day when GBDE becomes a standard. Now I'm waiting for someone to say that's only how we Europeans think eventhough we have no common identity as Europeans. > >Generally, complexity is not considered a desirable property in > >cryptosystems. GBDE violates this rule in spades. There are > >_reasons_ why complexity is not good: to begin with, a very complex > >cryptographic construct will require detailed analysis (which it > >does not appear GBDE has had by anyone but its author until Roland > >started looking at it) in order that we may know that it is even as > >secure as the underlying algorithmic building blocks it uses. > > Both Lucky Green and David Wagner has nodded vertical on GBDE. I trust the professional opinions of both Lucky Green and David Wagner at least an order of magnitute more than that of Roland Dowdeswell, especially after this discussion. Just what exactly is it about GBDE that is complex? You could explain the concepts behind GBDE to a 12 year old and they would understand them. The complexity lies not in analyzing GBDE but in breaking it. You can analyze it to see how you could break it, but breaking it is something that goes way beyond brute forcing individual sectors. CGD, on the other hand, is the perfect victim for such brute forcing. > I can not convince myself that encrypting a 40 GB disk sector by > sector using the same key, even if it is 256 bits, is a safe > design. Neither can I, which is why I will base my work on GBDE. ALeine P.S.: All you people cross-posting out there please cross-post properly (CC me). :-> ___________________________________________________________________ WebMail FREE http://mail.austrosearch.net