Max Inux <maxinux(_at_)bigfoot(_dot_)com> 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.