the efficiency

This algorithm looks concise based on its structure，
but detailed analysis shows that LFSR,BR,and F function are well designed
Besides this，what is uncertain is the efficiency，and what is
the advantages when compared with AES？？

efficien wrote:This algorithm looks concise based on its structure，
but detailed analysis shows that LFSR,BR,and F function are well designed
Besides this，what is uncertain is the efficiency，and what is
the advantages when compared with AES？？

I think a cell phone prefer a stream cipher something like ZUC other then AES.
Because the AES is just like another cell phone brand but the ZUC obviousily something
strange.

kknd wrote:

efficien wrote:This algorithm looks concise based on its structure，
but detailed analysis shows that LFSR,BR,and F function are well designed
Besides this，what is uncertain is the efficiency，and what is
the advantages when compared with AES？？

I think a cell phone prefer a stream cipher something like ZUC other then AES.
Because the AES is just like another cell phone brand but the ZUC obviousily something
strange.

You're missing the point. The point of ZUC is that:

• the "4G" mobile telecoms standard called LTE will be used in many countries across the world;
  
• two good, strong algorithms (based on AES and SNOW 3G) have already been specified for LTE;
  
• but Chinese regulation will not allow those algorithms to be used in China, because they were not designed in China;
  
• so ZUC has been designed in China, so that it can be used in China;
  
• and the whole point of this public evaluation is to help make sure that ZUC is also a good, strong algorithm that we should all be happy to include in the LTE standard.
  

So LTE already does use AES - but it can't do so in China. ZUC is not being proposed as something better than AES - just as a good alternative to AES that Chinese regulation will allow to be used in that country.