Template talk:Cryptography block

message: 3DES is listed twice in this block, once as "3DES" (a Common Algorithm) and once as "Triple DES" (an Other Algorithm). Is this intentional (i.e. someone looking for Triple DES might not know to look for 3DES instead)?
George A. M. (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not intentional. About the those-who-doesn't-know-aliases problem, I think anyone would first look at the Common Algorithms, and almost certainly 3DES should ring a bell. --Zom-B (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3DES v. Triple DES 

message: I initially added them to the main box, but then I got the feeling it didn't belong there and might make wikipedia look bad. I moved them here.

Algorithms not yet added to Wikipedia: Ake98 | BKSQ | CA-1.1 | CALC (cipher) | CRAYON | CRYPTO-MECCANO | JUNIPER | KEA | Li-Wang | MAYFLY | MISTY2 | MEDLEY | PES | Rao-Nam (and variants) | RC3 | RDES | s²DES | s³DES | s⁴DES | s⁵DES | Vino
Unnamed encryption algorithms: "A Secret Key Cryptosystem by Iterating a Chaotic Map" (1990) | "A Correlation Cryptographic Scheme" (1999)
Historical algorithms: Caesar cipher | ROT-13 | Vigenère cipher

--Zom-B (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other ciphers

message: Is Serpent really a "common algorithm"?  I don't know that I've ever encountered it in practice, and its article makes no assertion that it is in any sort of common or widespread use.  I will probably move it out of the top section in a few days unless there are any objections. hbent (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, it's included in the SSH standard. It's also one of only 3 block ciphers used by the very popular TrueCrypt. It's certainly widely implemented, and I would assume widely used. Ntsimp (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of OpenSSH 7.9p1 (2019), it is no longer built into openssh-portable.  The only algorithms available are AES (CBC, CTR, and GCM modes), 3DES-CBC, and ChaPoly.  Additionally, TrueCrypt's relevance has diminished since 2014.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.147.56 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, practically no one uses Serpent anymore and it does not have a large legacy like the DES, so it should be removed. See also #Common algorithms below. Dimawik (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serpent 

message: Just a thought.  Maybe the article on key whitening should be added to the template. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Whitening. 

message: Can we find another way to draw that line? Would it suffice to replace the "Common" group with a group supported under TLS/SSL? We really need to find something a little less arbitrary. Drawing the line at the editor-defined "Common" and "Other" seems to run afoul of a number of commonly accepted norms. MrZaiustalk 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common vs Other: NPOV issues, easily thrown out of date 

message: Why does DES-X belong in the "less common algorithms" section? This is the first time I've heard of the cipher and I don't know any practical applications using it. The sources in the article are not convincing either. -- intgr [talk] 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was done by the IP who created the section. The comment in the template (I think it's referring to this section rather than the one before) seems to imply there must be people using actual implementations of DES-X, but I'm with you. Ntsimp (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DES-X in Less common algorithms? 

message: I was adding Padding (cryptography), and I felt these algo headings were a bit cumbersome, and maybe also overspecialized. I tried to address the heading width by inserting some , but an additional step could be to replace the current 3-groups flat structure:
* Common algorithms
* Less common algorithms
* Other algorithms
With this 2-group one (demo below):
* Main algorithms
** Common: (list)
** Less common: (list)
* Other algorithms
Or maybe even a 1-group/3-subgroups design:
* Algorithms
** Common: (list)
** Less common: (list)
** Others: (list)
Also, it seems to me that cryptanalysis is one mode of attack so it should be listed in the "Attacks" group, not added to its heading. With an extra shortening of "Standardization" to "Standards", it would give something like this:
Just a thought... 62.147.11.3 (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the placement of cryptanalysis, since all the attacks next to it are forms of cryptanalysis. Ntsimp (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Why not just link "Attacks" to Cryptanalysis? I'm completely opposed to joining all algorithms into a single row, though; it looks like a gigantic mess compared to the current version. Foxyshadis(talk) 01:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: Should this be added to the attacks row? Although it's only applicable when encrypting twice to double the key length, it is a crypto attack related to block ciphers. Foxyshadis(talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meet-in-the-middle attack]] 

message: An anonymous colleague had added Salsa20 to the common list. I might be OK with ChaCha-related algorithm here, but would like to discuss the list first:
# Does the list consist of original algorithms or actual ciphers? (relevant for Salsa/Chacha) 
# Why is Serpent common? It does not appear to be used anywhere anymore. See also #Serpent above
# Are Blowfish (cipher) and Twofish both common? 
# If an answer to the previous question is "yes" and the template lists (in the "common" part) algorithms, should it have both Blowfish and Twofish in the list? Algorithmic-wise, they are somewhat similar. 
# DES is obsolete, but I would still consider it "common". Am I correct?
# The list has an American AES, Chinese SM4. It would seem to be fair to have something European, too. Is there a "common" European block cipher?
Dimawik (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common algorithms