This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
"Biclique attacks are known for having broken both full AES and full IDEA"
> "Biclique attacks are known for having broken both full AES and full IDEA"
Saying it "broke" full AES or IDEA while being only marginally fewer steps than brute force (and actually likely slower than brute force if you add extra accounting steps), and completely impossible to execute before heat death of the universe is a bit much. I think this should be rephrased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A00:23C7:6B88:4600:DDCF:F777:9F3F:B215 (
talk)
20:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)reply
It seems that "weaken" is a better term to convey understanding. "Broken" suggests that AES is now insecure (at least, to the laymen, the target audience of Wikipedia). If a jargon specific sense is meant, it'd probably be best to make the word hyperlinked to a page discussing the terminology. For now, to prevent a casual reader from being mislead, I have changed this to "weakened".
2604:4080:137E:8620:F177:2CCB:CE09:F786 (
talk)
17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
As evidence, if you search for "broken cryptography" you'll find this page: