Re: Twofish

[William Lewis <wiml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Max Inux <maxinux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I dont know about NAI, but from what Werner has said on the GPG list he
> intends to remove Blowfish, which makes sense, I dont know about anyone
> else but I have yet to see anyone use Blowfish, so why not just pretend it
> was not there and just go with twofish?  after AES is done, it surely will
> have been proven.

It's asking for trouble to have an ambiguous assigned number. If there were  
a shortage of available numbers, reusing Blowfish's might make sense; but  
there isn't, and if someday there is, Blowfish's number can be reused then.

The argument that Twofish is Blowfish's successor doesn't hold water, IMHO.  
Twofish won't decrypt a message encrypted with Blowfish, so they're different  
algorithms, despite sharing authorship or structure.