Page 25 - index

My infinite algorithm is a different type of algorithm to the data encryption algorithms
submitted for AES. However, I did read a report on the algorithms and there are certain
comparisons that can be drawn since all efficient encryption systems have to rely on exactly
the same basic principles. It would be interesting to compare.

Let me get my hands dirty. Which of the five algorithms do I think best matches my infinite
algorithm in terms of efficiency, in terms of the principles I have used?

The two algorithms most favored by NIST were Rijndael because it was the quickest and
Serpent because it was the most secure. In the end they chose Rijndael, which was created
by a team of two. (I think it's pronounced something like 'rain doll' but I can't be sure. That's
what we'll call it for now.)

I want to thank Eternity's creator, Eternity 2's creators and everyone who attempted both
puzzles and all those who submitted AES algorithms. My special gratitude to the Twofish
team. Really, thanks for your enormous contribution to cryptography. You guys did a really
fine job so I say well done. It's nice to know who had the most efficient design. I just want
you to know that there are others out there that appreciate what you have done.

(Also thanks to the later Threefish team.)

Of all the algorithms submitted for AES it seems that only one replicated the design
principles of my hidden infinite algorithm.

Is it supposed to be that low?

In fact, yes. It really isn't that surprising. Cryptographers make mistakes too. They run out of
ideas, just like anyone else. When the going gets tough more and more people drop out. So
it really wasn't that surprising. Only one team created a 256-bit encryption algorithm
correctly.

Why only one? Because it's very very hard to do. (It's harder than creating an Eternity 2.)

It took a group of eight capable people to create that one algorithm. They didn't just use one
or two people. They knew their algorithm would have to work efficiently in both computer
software and hardware. They worked out what an acceptable safety margin would be and
ensured the best compromise between speed and performance. They introduced very clever
ideas which would further guarantee that no one in the world would ever crack it. The team
spent thousands and thousands of hours creating it, tweaking it and testing it. They were the
only team that successfully worked out, exactly, how efficient a 256-bit encryption algorithm
is supposed to be and that's how it's done.

Does that sound sensible?

These are supposed to be the best cryptographers in the world. So, what went horribly
wrong?

It is highly unlikely that all of the algorithms submitted will have been equally efficient and
that's exactly what occurred.

! " $
! # ! "