Talk:Twofish

Information
There appears to be a great deal of information regarding the AES selection and Twofish (and all the other nominees) here at. I'm going to incorporate parts of this into the article, including the info about supposed breaks, but be forewarned, I'm not a crypto geek. Sword 17:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Murphy & Robshaw attack
Twofish's S-boxes are key dependent but do not change with each encryption. The attack referred to is (ps) but it's not very relevant (it only breaks five of Twofish's 16 rounds) and should either form part of a longer section on cryptanalysis of Twofish or be dropped. I've removed it for now. ciphergoth 13:01, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * For reference, S. Murphy and M. Robshaw report that knowing that the S-boxes change with each encryption, that one can craft a differential attack by choosing a plaintext and seeing what the output is. This has only been suggested against a reduced-round (near 5) Twofish. is the removed text. &mdash; Matt 13:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diagram ERROR: The one-bit left rotate in the column containing K2 and K6 should be a one-bit RIGHT rotate
The one-bit left rotate in the column containing K2 and K6 should be a one-bit RIGHT rotate. The other rotate (in the rightmost column) should indeed be a left rotate. Compare with figure 1 on page 6 of the twofish paper.

It also might be worth describing the symbols for addition modulo 232 and XOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I fixed it. Dchestnykh (talk)

The legend in the picture says addition modulo 32 and maybe 33, when it should be addition modulo 232. Unfortunately, I don't have the tools to correct it. Doctorhook (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 * Fixed. Dchestnykh (talk)

Attacks on Twofish with reduced number of rounds
It might be worth mentioning how many rounds can currently be broken. This is mentioned in "A Performance Comparison of the Five AES Finalists", but I don't know if that is still sufficiently up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.136.40 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdated??
The dramatic 'outdated' notice at the top of the page totally puzzles me. Whoever put it there could have written two words to at least hint at what he had in mind. Currently, it leaves the impression that Twofish was totally broken by some recent ingenious attack but I fail to find anything about it, quite the contrary. 84.50.19.83 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. If anyone wishes to put it back up, do include a reason.77.68.144.35 (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)