[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