FUD about CGD and GBDE

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 10:15:55PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 
> And if CGD is _so_ officially approved as you say, then I can not
> for the life of me understand how it can use the same key to generate
> the IV and perform the encryption.  At the very least two different
> keys should have been used at the "expense" of making the masterkey
> 512 bits instead of 256.

Why "should" two different keys have been used?  It is possible that I
misunderstand the underlying theory, but so far as I do understand it
the only real requirement for IVs is that the Hamming distance between
any two used with the same encryption key be large.

Are you concerned about a key recovery attack?  If so, can you give
an outline of how it would work?

-- 
 Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls at rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
 abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."		- Noam Chomsky