Rijndael & NTRU

[Vin McLellan]

>  As Bram Cohen <bram at gawth.com> put it:
> >
> > .> The selection of Rijndael was actually quite predictable - the round 2
> > ..> report made it pretty clear that the only real contenders were Rijndael
> > c.> and Twofish, and hey, that last coin toss is free with 20/20 
> hindsight :)
>
>Actually I had the clear impression that there were three real contenders:
>Rijndael, Serpent, and Twofish, in this order.

         Not to take anything from Rijndael, which is both popular and 
widely respected among many critical professionals, but I suspect that one 
of the more long-lasting (pseudo-conspiratorial) theories about the 
selection of Rijndael as the AES will be built around the fact that 
Rijndael's design apparently allowed it -- and it alone of the final five 
-- to escape the scope of a current US patent issued to Hitachi (which is 
said to cover the use of data rotation in encryption.)

         (Thus -- as the tale may be told -- did the "inadequacies" of the 
US Patent and Trademark Office define US and world crypto standards for the 
21st Century;-)

         I can't (for the life of me;-) figure out which of Hatachi's US 
crypto patents this claim is based upon, but the formal Hitachi warning to 
NIST -- dated last April -- that Hitachi had IP (US patents) which covered 
AES candidates is at: 
<http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/round2/comments/20000407-sharano.pdf>.

         I noticed, Paulo, that you were one of those who were 
(unsuccessfully) nagging NIST for information about their reaction to the 
Hitachi IP claims.

         Any thoughts -- or additional information to offer -- in the 
aftermath of the coronation?

         Surete,
                 _Vin