Talk:Biclique attack

"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)

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)

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)