Talk:XTEA

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

This looks bad in Firefox 1.0

I don't know how this page looks in MSIE 5/6, but in Firefox 1.0, there is a problem with the layout: The source code for TEA overlaps the floating diagram in the upper right hand corner describing TEA. Samboy 11:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, in MSIE 5 it puts the text in question in its own scrollbox, complete with a scrollbar, so that it doesn't overlap. OK, I'm going to make this page look decent in both MSIE 5 and in Firefox 1.0 Samboy 10:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a bigger problem than I thought at first; the bug is in the code that the mediawiki software uses. I'll work around it, but this looks like something I should bring up to village pump. Samboy 07:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About the initial value of sum

The example code for deciphering showed sum being initialized to a constant value (delta * 32).

If one looks in the xtea paper it becomes clear that the value sum should be initialized is in fact number of rounds times the delta constant. This means that the example code would only work for implementations with 32 rounds. I have fixed the code to take an additional parameter with the number of rounds, but I wanted to to explain the change too.

--Joachim Strombergson 15:53, 7 June 2006

64-bit cleanliness

Should we rewrite the code to be 64-bit clean?

If so, should we use u_int32_t (sys/types.h) or uint32_t (Stdint.h)?

--bitwiseshiftleft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.51.171 (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about AES?

I would like to have this page compare XTEA to AES. Isn't that also small and easy to implement? Which is stronger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsong (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definitive answer, and Wikipedia does not publish original research; Wikipedia is definitely in no position of authority to tell that one's better than the other.

If you want a trustworthy answer you should consult a real cryptographer, but for what it's worth, AES is much more thoroughly cryptanalysed and understood, so you can't go wrong with it. Of course if you're developing cryptography software, the cipher is the least of your worries; rogue protocols and implementations are a far easier target for cryptanalysis, and are broken much more often. -- intgr [talk] 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XTEA is much easier to implement than AES. It's also arguable that AES is "better". hif (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should never attempt to implement a cipher anyway — there are many of public domain implementations available, not to mention freely licensed libraries. There is really no reason to roll your own — you only incur the potential cost of adding mistakes. -- intgr [talk] 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XTEA is easier to implement and requires much less resources than AES. Both code/ROM and RAM memory usage is much smaller. XTEA however is normally much slower due to more rounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.67.2 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test vectors

We should probably add some test vectors, at least to show that the code here produces the same result as the original code. Hmm I'll try and fix this real soonish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.67.2 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XTEA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XTEA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071228053741/http://143.53.36.235:8080/tea.htm to http://143.53.36.235:8080/tea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the reference code, the calculation of sum in the decipher function overflows 32 bits... intentional?

If so, then why not add a constant value for sum in decipher, much like the offset is a fixed integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.mcneely (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance box still needed?

After converting some of the further reading stuff into proper references since they are the papers etc. the crypto analysis section refers to, can the maintenance box get removed now?--2A02:8070:63D1:1B00:417:1724:EBB7:4481 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]