News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Keccak is not ARX by projectant on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @12:04AM (#15290748)
Ok but, in reply to that tweet, one point keccak.team make, which seems valid for non-classified cryptanalysis, is that researchers don't invest time in trying to analyse ARX because the propagation of addition makes it too complicated.

One thing I got from that is that ARX designs are less likely to be broken, not because they are necessarily more secure, but because ARX is often less analysed than designs which yield more concise mathematical representations.

Re:Why Keccak is not ARX by gcp on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:29AM (#15291507)
I think there's an implication here of "less likely to be broken by public research".
Re:Why Keccak is not ARX by SkyMarshal on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @02:34PM (#15296874)
Exactly, ARX's less analyzed complexity is a potential information asymmetry arbitrage for serious attackers.
Re:Why Keccak is not ARX by mfukar on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @08:42AM (#15293067)
That would be getting causality backwards.
Re:Why Keccak is not ARX by gcp on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @12:15PM (#15295428)
I have no idea what you mean.