From daw-usenet@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu Mon Jan 19 00:18:06 PST 2004 Article: 264964 of sci.crypt Path: agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail From: daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Better algorithm: Rijndael or TwoFish? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1d54b7e4.0401182256.107ae29f@posting.google.com> Reply-To: daw-usenet@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) NNTP-Posting-Host: taverner.cs.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 1074500241 73786 128.32.153.228 (19 Jan 2004 08:17:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Xref: agate.berkeley.edu sci.crypt:264964 mike3 wrote: >Which is better: Rijndael or Twofish in terms of security and speed? >How good do they compare? My advice would be to use AES, not Twofish, unless there is some special requirement that makes AES unsuitable. There's nothing particularly wrong with Twofish -- I'm pleased with the design and how it has held up -- but I think AES is even better, and AES is receiving more scrutiny than any of the other finalists. This gives a powerful reason to prefer AES over Twofish (or any of the other finalists, including Serpent, for that matter). Full disclosure: I was a co-designer of Twofish, so I'm probably biased.