Overview
On August 20, 1998, at the First AES Candidate Conference, NIST announced the fifteen AES candidates for Round 1 evaluation, and called for public comments on those candidates. NIST also called for comments in the Federal Register of Sept. 14, 1998. These public comments could be submitted electronically to NIST.Other, non-official discussions, have also been taking place at NIST's AES Forum. Discussions at that site should be AES-specific.
The Round 1 comment period closed on April 15, 1999, and NIST would like to thank the many people and organizations who contributed their resources to analyzing and providing comments on the candidates.
Comments Received
NIST received more than 56 sets of comments (plus papers submitted to the AES2 conference), all of which are available here. The comments are divided into several categories:
- E-mail comments (PDF; 200 KB) - All public comments that were contained in the body of an e-mail message. (Comments were last updated on April 21, 1999. Note that all comments added to this file are located at the end of the file.)
- General Papers and Letters - Electronically submitted papers and letters have been converted to PDF format. For convenience, all of these comments are provided in three zip files (File1, File2, and File3).
TITLE AUTHOR(s) Size (KB) Weak Keys of CRYPTON Johan Borst,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven146 [LETTER] Akyman Financial Services Pty. Ltd. 33 The Need for Multiple AES Winners Brian Gladman 15 [LETTER] John Graff,
Deloitte & Touche Security Services38 Decorrelated Fast Cipher: an AES Candidate well suited for low cost smart cards applications Guillaume Poupard and Serge Vaudenay,
CNRS194 [LETTER] Charles S. Williams,
Cylink Corporation18 AES Public Comment from the Rijndael Team Joan Daemen (Proton World), and Vincent Rijmen (KULeuven) 75 A Note Regarding the Hash Function Use of MARS and RC6
Caution: this document may load extremely slowly when viewing in a browser. We recommend that you download it and then view it.Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen,
SSH Communications Security Ltd.427 Some Comments on the First Round AES Evaluation of RC6 Scott Contini, Ronald L. Rivest, M.J.B. Robshaw, Yiqun Lisa Yin 223 Serpent and Smartcards Ross Anderson, Eli Biham, Lars Knudsen 152 Some Observations on the 1st Round of the AES Selection Process Bart Preneel,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven89 Comparison of the Randomness Provided by Some AES Candidates Serge Vaudenay (Ecole Normale Superieure - CNRS), Shiho Moriai (NTT Laboratories) 121 Yet Another Performance Analysis of the AES Candidates Gary Graunke,
Intel Corp.9 Performance Analysis of AES candidates on the 6805 CPU core Geoffrey Keating,
Australian National University36 Comments on NIST's Efficiency Testing for Round1 AES Candidates Kazumaro Aoki,
NTT Laboratories44 Optimized Software Implementations of E2 Kazumaro Aoki and Hiroki Ueda,
NTT Laboratories145 Software Implementation Results of E2 Kazumaro Aoki and Hiroki Ueda,
NTT Laboratories59 Search for Impossible Differential on E2 Kazumaro Aoki and Masayuki Kanda,
NTT Laboratories74 Java Performance of AES Candidates NTT Laboratories (contact: Kazumaro Aoki) 341 AES: Analysis of the RefCode and OptCCode submissions Louis Granboulan,
CNRS177 Some thoughts on the AES process Lars R. Knudsen,
University of Bergen125 Comments on Hardware Implementation of E2 NTT Corporation (contact: Masayuki Kanda) 48 A Bit Naming Convention for Cryptographic ALgorithms Markus G. Kuhn,
University of Cambridge74 Comparative Analysis of the Advanced Encryption Standard Candidate Algorithms Peter M.B. Mokros,
Macalester College67 Security of E2 against Truncated Differential Cryptanalysis (in progress) NTT Laboratories (contact: Shiho Moriai) 114 Comment on Selecting the Ciphers for the AES Second Round Eli Biham,
Technion87 A Note on Comparing the AES Candidates Eli Biham,
Technion114 A Note on Comparing the AES Candidates (slides) Eli Biham,
Technion105 - AES2 Papers
Twenty-eight (28) papers were submitted for the Second AES Candidate Conference (March 22-23, 1999), and those submissions are considered as Round 1 public comments, too. Here is the complete set of papers that were submitted, with a link to the submitters' home page (if provided). Please keep in mind that due to the short time schedule, NIST did not go through several rounds of submissions (i.e., not all papers will be "polished"). Links are provided to submitters' home pages, in case they have updated versions of their submissions.
