Talk:Biclique attack

Cryptography: Computer science Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance).

"Biclique attacks are known for having broken both full AES and full IDEA"

> "Biclique attacks are known for having broken both full AES and full IDEA"

Saying it "broke" full AES or IDEA while being only marginally fewer steps than brute force (and actually likely slower than brute force if you add extra accounting steps), and completely impossible to execute before heat death of the universe is a bit much. I think this should be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6B88:4600:DDCF:F777:9F3F:B215 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "weaken" is a better term to convey understanding. "Broken" suggests that AES is now insecure (at least, to the laymen, the target audience of Wikipedia). If a jargon specific sense is meant, it'd probably be best to make the word hyperlinked to a page discussing the terminology. For now, to prevent a casual reader from being mislead, I have changed this to "weakened". 2604:4080:137E:8620:F177:2CCB:CE09:F786 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence, if you search for "broken cryptography" you'll find this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Broken_cryptography_algorithms

Which contains only actually broken ciphers, in the sense that they can be defeated by people with feasible resources. 2604:4080:137E:8620:F177:2CCB:CE09:F786 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]