Why aren't these more widely used? Has anyone here ever heard of someone using these, or are they total memes?>security on par with AES>much, much simpler to implement (pic rel has the full code for Speck128/128)
Because AES just works.
nobody encrypts anything. how many giant corporations need to get hacked just to find they store everything in plain text before you realize that? the only places that encrypt stuff do so to fulfill a legal requirement, and speck aint gonna cut it
>>108561032>>security on par with AESWith what level of AES?
>>108561078Look at the picture. One of Speck's block sizes is 128 bits, and it supports 128-bit, 192-bit, and 256-bit keys at that size, so that's all the AES variants. Ascon only has 128-bit keys though.
>>108561050It doesn't. That is why we are forced to use hardware implementations.
>>108561090>and it supports 128-bit, 192-bit, and 256-bit keys at that size, so that's all the AES variantsSpeck being 128-bit doesn't mean that it is equivalent to AES-128.
kryptos that runs is https and ssh but i do not know these things
>>108561032Is that code timing safe?
>>108561265Yes. There are no lookup tables and no data-dependent branches.>>108561246After 13 years, there are still no known attacks for full round variants, and the key space needed for a brute force is the same as AES, so why not?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speck_(cipher)
>... Israel opposed the efforts by the NSA to standardise the Simon and Speck ciphers, citing concerns that the NSA is pushing for their standardisation with knowledge of exploitable weaknesses in the ciphers. >Even Israel doesn't want itSounds sussy as hell.
