[RC5] CSC vs rc5

Jason Hartzell jason_hartzell at lvcm.com
Tue Dec 21 10:11:10 EST 1999

>Why? People aren't in for the money, the expected income is just not enough. Besides, if they were, they would go to dcypher. Stats might be >important to some, but aren't you excluding something else? The fact that CSC is a 56-bit encryption system, that it has already been proven >that 56-bit encryption can be broken pretty easily, and this CSC challenge is hardly a challenged, and will not prove anything that wasn't >already known?
>I don't mind wasting my spare CPU cycles to something I can see some interest in, like RC5-64. But I'm not going to waste CPU cycles to one >something that isn't interesting at all.

This is just another case of a fundamental lack of understanding
regarding cryptography. The misconception that all 56-bit encryption is
the same. If that's the case, then why is CSC taking so much longer than
the last DES. Why did RC5-56 take longer than CSC and DESIII combined.
Cracking CSC does prove something, and provides the "break" that 90% of
all participants were screaming for about six months ago. You remember,
when everyone wanted more short term projects so that they could get a
feeling of accomplishment. Now that the short term project is here they
don't want to bother so that they can pad stats in RC5-64. Pretty
stupid. Some people just don't get that there is only one block in the
entire RC5-64 project that is worth caring about. Oh well, and you
wonder why the corporation wants to lock IT in the closet because they
are just too stupid to get it..

To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

More information about the rc5 mailing list