A. Zugaj, Comments on AES candidates, comment submitted on April 15, 1999, available at [2]. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Status Report On The First Round Of The.. - Nechvatal.. (1999) (5 citations) (Correct)
....implementation, SUN TM UltraSPARC TM . Source: 29] Table 2. I: DEC Alpha ASM. Source: 37] Table 7. J: DEC Alpha AXP 21264, DEC CC. Source: 29] Table 1. K: Hewlett Packard PA7000. Source: 29] Table 1. L: Pentium Pro, Java. Source: 35] M: Texas Instruments TMS320c541 DSP, C. Source: [43]. 42 Table 2. Encryption speeds, ranked Table 2 provides the ranking of the encryption speeds of the candidates for encrypting one 128 bit block with a 128 bit key. Note that a ranking of 1 denotes the fastest encryption speed. A B C D E F G H I J K L M CAST 8 8 6 7 6 6 9 5 9 9 7 9 8 CRYP 5 3 ....
....4278 38598 SERP 13154 2500 2402 28913 TWOF 18846 8600 8414 88751 Legend for Table 3: A: Linux GCC 2.7.2.2 Pentium 133 MZh MMX. Source: 5] Table 3. B: Intel Pentium Pro, C. Source: 37] Table 2. C: Intel Pentium Pro II, C. Source: 20] Table 1. D: Texas Instruments TMS320c541 DSP, C. Source: [43]. 44 Table 4. Smart card space requirements Table 4 provides information taken mainly from [37] RAM1 is the RAM requirement in bytes for candidates not supporting on the fly subkey generation. RAM2 is the RAM requirement in bytes for candidates supporting on the fly subkey generation. Two ....
A. Zugaj, Comments on AES candidates, comment submitted on April 15, 1999, available at [2].
Status Report On The First Round Of The.. - Nechvatal.. (1999) (5 citations) (Correct)
....it was considered unlikely that CRYPTON would surpass either Rijndael or Twofish when the AES algorithm(s) is selected. Thus, CRYPTON is not advanced to Round 2. DFC: The precise security status of DFC is difficult to ascertain due to a lack of resolution of the issue of provable security ( 26] [39]) It has been argued that the scope of the submitter s provable security claims is sufficiently limited such that a case for a strong proof of overall security cannot be made. In addition, there is a concern about DFC s low security margin. Thus, the only concrete advantage of DFC appears to be ....
J. Stern and S. Vaudenay, On decorrelation and provable security, comment submitted on April 15, 1999, available at [2].
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC