Re: [Cfrg] Encrypt in place guidance

[Leo Perrin <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> Speck
> 
> Hmm. Were the design criteria for that algorithm
> ever published in the end? (I've not followed it,
> so they may have been.)

The authors of SPECK put something on eprint [1] but it merely lists public results and claims they already knew about the corresponding attacks. I personally don't find this document convincing at all since it came *after* a public analysis. In my opinion (and it is not a controversial one in the academic symmetric crypto community), if the designers of a cipher did not publish their security analysis along with its specification then you should not even consider using the corresponding cipher. Of course, there is also the elephant in the room: SPECK was designed by the same entity as the backdoored DUAL_EC.

By the way, there are many (many!) 64-bit block ciphers in the literature---see Table 6 of [2]. Full disclosure: I am a co-author of this survey. If you have questions about it, feel free to ask!

[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/560
[2] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/511

Cheers,

/Léo