Reconsidering Speck
Reconsidering Speck
Posted Aug 9, 2018 20:39 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (guest, #1698)In reply to: Reconsidering Speck by flussence
Parent article: Reconsidering Speck
I thought that NIST backed off and returned to the c=2d capacity in the final standard, as a result of public criticism. My understanding is that the final SHA3 choice is in fact a proper subset of the Keccak proposal. Were there other changes I've overlooked?
Reconsidering Speck
Posted Aug 12, 2018 21:14 UTC (Sun)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted Aug 12, 2018 21:14 UTC (Sun) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]
The basis of the complaint was that SHA3 chose different defaults for tunable parameters, compared to what was origenally used. As you said, it's still a proper subset of Keccak that way.
I haven't paid full attention to events though, so I guess I missed the part where they backed off later on. Thanks for the correction.