Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

RC2

RC2 is a symmetric-key designed by cryptographer in 1987. It processes fixed 64-bit blocks of data using a variable-length secret key, employing 18 rounds structured as a source-heavy unbalanced Feistel to provide . Originally developed as a proprietary by RSA and trademarked under the name "RC2," it supports effective key sizes ranging from 1 to bits, though practical implementations often limited to 40 or 128 bits for export compliance or performance reasons. Intended as a successor to the (DES), RC2 gained adoption in early secure communications protocols such as SSL and due to its efficiency on hardware of the era. However, subsequent cryptanalytic research revealed vulnerabilities, including differential attacks that reduce its margin and exploiting the small block size, rendering full-strength versions insecure against modern computational power. These weaknesses, compounded by the 64-bit block susceptibility to birthday attacks in certain modes, have led to its widespread deprecation in standards bodies and software libraries, with recommendations to migrate to or other NIST-approved ciphers. Despite its in demonstrating variable-key block ciphers, RC2 exemplifies the of , where empirical testing and first-principles analysis of round functions exposed limitations unforeseen in initial designs.

History

Development and Initial Design

RC2 was designed in 1987 by Ronald L. Rivest, co-founder of RSA Data Security, as a proprietary symmetric-key block cipher. The "RC" designation reflects "Rivest Cipher" or "Ron's Code," continuing the naming convention from Rivest's earlier algorithms like RC4. Intended as a potential successor to the Data Encryption Standard (DES), RC2 emphasized efficient software implementation, particularly on resource-constrained 16-bit microprocessors prevalent at the time. Its development occurred amid growing demand for commercial encryption solutions that balanced security, performance, and export compliance under U.S. regulations restricting strong cryptography abroad. The initial architecture adopted a 64-bit block size to align with DES while introducing variable key lengths from 8 to 1024 bits in 8-bit increments, enabling adjustable security strength without altering the core cipher. RC2 structures its 18 rounds as a source-heavy unbalanced Feistel network: the first 16 rounds perform "mixing" operations that diffuse data using subkeys and variable rotations derived from the key schedule, followed by 2 final "mashing" rounds for additional key-dependent transformations. The key schedule pads the input key to 128 bytes, then iteratively mixes it against a fixed 256-entry substitution table (derived from a primitive polynomial) to generate per-round subkeys and rotation amounts, promoting avalanche effects and resistance to linear analysis in the designer's intent. Proprietary details, including the full substitution table and exact mixing functions, remained confidential to protect RSA's and facilitate licensing, with only weakened variants (e.g., 40-bit effective keys) approved for export to comply with U.S. export controls. This secrecy delayed public scrutiny until reverse engineering efforts in 1996 revealed the internals, prompting formal documentation. Early evaluations by Rivest focused on empirical testing for and properties rather than provable reductions, reflecting the era's reliance on ad-hoc strengthened by round iterations.

Publication and Standardization

RC2 was designed by Ronald Rivest in 1987 as a proprietary symmetric for Data Security, with its details kept confidential to protect trade secrets. In 1996, the algorithm was reverse-engineered from binary implementations and anonymously posted to the sci.crypt, effectively leaking its internals to the . RSA Security responded by drafting an official specification, initially as an Internet-Draft in 1997, before formalizing it in RFC 2268, titled "A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm," published on March 1, 1998. This document details RC2's structure, including its variable effective controlled by r (e.g., 64 bits for full strength, 40 bits for export-restricted variants), and presents the cipher as a candidate successor with 64-bit blocks and up to 1024-bit keys expanded to 1040 bits internally. While not endorsed as an IETF standard, RC2 gained traction through references in subsequent s for cryptographic protocols, such as Triple-DES and RC2 key wrapping in 3217 (November 2001) and its use in (CMS) with 128-bit key derivation in 3370 (August 2002). These incorporations primarily supported weaker key sizes to comply with 1990s U.S. export controls on , limiting RC2's effective in international deployments to 40 bits until regulations eased in the late .

Design and Operation

Architectural Structure

RC2 is a symmetric-key designed to encrypt 64-bit blocks into 64-bit blocks. The algorithm divides each block into four 16-bit words, labeled R through R, which are processed in-place during . It supports variable key lengths ranging from 1 to 128 bytes (8 to 1024 bits), with the effective security strength controlled by a parameter r (bits(r)), typically set to 64 for full-strength implementations or lower (e.g., 40 bits) for export-restricted variants. The core architecture consists of 18 sequential steps divided into mixing and rounds: five mixing rounds, followed by one round, six mixing rounds, another round, and five final mixing rounds, totaling 16 mixing rounds and 2 rounds. This forms an unbalanced, source-heavy Feistel-like network, where mixing rounds apply a nonlinear combining word values, subkeys, and a fixed 256-entry table (PITABLE) via modular addition, bitwise XOR, and rotations, while mashing rounds XOR each word with a subkey selected based on the low-order 6 bits of the prior word. The design emphasizes efficiency on 16-bit microprocessors, using operations like 16-bit rotates and table lookups without requiring full 32-bit arithmetic. Decryption mirrors the encryption process but reverses the subkey order and adjusts rotations and indices to invert the mixing function, ensuring invertibility without additional modes. The key schedule expands the input key into a 128-byte array, from which 64 16-bit subkeys are derived, providing material for all rounds; this expansion incorporates the r parameter to limit effective key bits by truncating or padding during scheduling. Overall, the structure prioritizes diffusion and confusion through repeated nonlinear transformations across the four words, with dependencies propagating from R to R in each mixing step.

Key Schedule and Mixing

The RC2 key schedule expands an input key of variable length T bytes, where 1 ≤ T ≤ 128, into 64 subkeys K to K, each 16 bits wide. The process begins by loading the key into a L to L[T-1] and padding it to 128 bytes. Specifically, for i from T to 127, each L is computed as PITABLE[(L[i-1] + L[i-T]) mod 256], where PITABLE is a fixed 256-entry derived from a primitive polynomial and initialized with values such as PITABLE = 0xd9. To support effective key lengths T1 bits (typically up to bits, but often restricted to 40 or bits for ), the schedule incorporates a key-strengthening step. Let T8 = ceil(T1 / 8); then L[128 - T8] is updated as PITABLE[L[128 - T8] & (2^(T1 mod 8) - 1)] to mask higher bits, ensuring the effective key bits are L[128 - T8] to L. Finally, for i from 127 - T8 down to 0, L = PITABLE[L[i+1] XOR L[i + T8]], mixing the buffer in reverse. The subkeys are then derived as K = L[2j] + 256 * L[2j+1] for j = 0 to 63, providing a nonlinear expansion resistant to simple linear attacks. The mixing operations form the core nonlinear in RC2's rounds, applied across mixing rounds interspersed with 2 mashing rounds. In each mixing round updating register R, the value is first combined nonlinearly: R += K + (R[i-1] AND R[i-2]) + (NOT R[i-1] AND R[i-3]), where j increments sequentially through the subkeys and indices are modulo 4 for the R array. The result is then rotated left by a fixed amount from the sequence s = {1, 2, 3, 5}, repeating as needed. This structure, using 5 initial mixing rounds, 1 round (R += K; ROTL(R, 1)), 6 more mixing rounds, another round, and 5 final mixing rounds, ensures each subkey influences exactly one mixing operation per block encryption, promoting effects despite the cipher's variable key support.

Encryption Process

The RC2 encryption algorithm processes 64-bit plaintext blocks, divided into four 16-bit words denoted as R, R, R, and R, using modular arithmetic modulo $2^{16}. All operations, including addition and bitwise functions, are performed on 16-bit words. The process begins with key expansion to derive a 64-entry array K to K from the input key, which can vary from 1 to 128 bytes (8 to 1024 bits), with an effective key strength parameter r (1 ≤ r ≤ 1024) controlling the mixing depth during expansion. The expansion uses a fixed 256-entry permutation table (PITABLE), derived from a modified pi function, to scramble and diffuse the key material: the input key bytes fill an array L to L[T-1] (where T is the key length), followed by iterative scrambling loops to extend to 128 bytes, then folding back based on r to produce the key schedule K. Encryption proceeds in 18 rounds structured as alternating mixing and mashing phases: five mixing rounds, one mashing round, six mixing rounds, one mashing round, and five final mixing rounds, totaling 16 mixing rounds and 2 mashing rounds. Initialize R[0..3] with the plaintext words and set index j = 0. A mixing round applies the MIX function sequentially to each R (i = 0 to 3, indices modulo 4):
  • RR + K + (R[i-1]R[i-2]) + (¬R[i-1]R[i-3]) (mod $2^{16})
  • j ← (j + 1) mod 64
  • R ← Rotate left R by s bits, where s = [1, 2, 3, 5]
This adds key material, performs nonlinear mixing via AND and complement operations, and applies word-wise rotation for diffusion. A mashing round then applies the MASH function to each R:
  • RR + K[R[i-1] ∧ 63] (mod $2^{16})
Here, R[i-1] indexes into the first 64 entries of K, providing data-dependent substitution. The index j advances only during mixing (4 increments per round), cycling through the full key schedule over the 16 mixing rounds. The final R[0..3] values form the 64-bit , output as bytes in little-endian order per word. Decryption reverses by inverting the rounds (mash inverses via , mix via right rotations and reverse additions), leveraging the involutory nature of the operations. The design emphasizes key strength via r, with full 1024-bit s yielding maximal rounds of ing, though export variants often restricted r ≤ 40 or 64 for compliance with U.S. regulations.

Cryptanalysis

Early Vulnerabilities and Attacks

In the years following the public disclosure of RC2's design in 1996 and its formal description in , initial cryptanalytic efforts focused on and . A analysis examined potential differential characteristics across RC2's 16 rounds of mixing and mashing operations, identifying trails with probabilities as high as $2^{-15} for full-round distinguishers, but these did not yield a practical key-recovery due to insufficient probability amplification and the cipher's variable rotation amounts disrupting propagation. Linear approximations were also explored, revealing biases up to $2^{-17} for certain S-box , yet the overall resisted low-data-complexity linear attacks, as the non-linear mixing layers and key-dependent rotations exploitable biases. These preliminary results indicated no immediate structural weaknesses comparable to those in ciphers like , though the analyses highlighted RC2's reliance on proprietary S-boxes for security, which had undergone independent scrutiny prior to publication. A notable early vulnerability emerged from related-key differential cryptanalysis, detailed in a 1997 study targeting RC2 alongside other ciphers. This exploits key differences that propagate through the and round functions, enabling a distinguisher for full-round RC2 using approximately $2^{34} chosen plaintexts under two related keys differing in 16 specific bits. The method recovers subkey material by constructing high-probability differentials across the 18 logical rounds, with an overall success probability sufficient for practical implementation on 1990s hardware, though it requires attacker control over related keys—a feasible in protocols with key derivation flaws or poor . Export-restricted variants with effective 40-bit keys amplified this exposure, as brute-force combined with related-key differentials reduced search spaces further, rendering them insecure against modest computational resources by the late 1990s; for instance, 40-bit RC2 keys were demonstrably cracked in hours using efforts akin to those targeting early implementations. Despite these findings, no full known-plaintext attacks breaking RC2's full key strength were achieved in this period, and a confirmed the absence of serious design flaws beyond the related-key class, attributing resilience to the cipher's irregular scheduling and blending operations. The vulnerabilities underscored RC2's origins in a pre-open era, where ad-hoc resistance to known techniques like differentials proved adequate against early probes but invited refinement in subsequent .

Effective Security and Key Strength

RC2 incorporates a configurable effective key bits parameter, denoted as T_1, which ranges from to 1024 bits and influences the by applying a to limit the expanded 's , originally designed to comply with export regulations by simulating shorter keys (e.g., 40 bits). This determines the modulus in the loop, capping the search space at \min(2^{8T}, 2^{T_1}) where T is typically 8 bytes, ensuring that even longer input keys do not exceed the specified effective strength. In full-strength configurations with T_1 = [1024](/page/1024) bits, RC2 resists brute-force attacks, as searching the key space would require $2^{[1024](/page/1024)} operations, far beyond current computational feasibility. However, the cipher's 64-bit block size limits practical security in confidentiality modes like for large datasets, exposing it to birthday attacks that achieve collisions after approximately $2^{32} blocks (roughly 32 GB of data), enabling plaintext recovery with high probability. No known chosen-plaintext or known-plaintext s break the full-round RC2 faster than exhaustive search under standard single-key assumptions, with and yielding only marginal reductions inapplicable to full effective keys. A related-key , exploiting specific relations between two keys differing in targeted bits, recovers the full key using $2^{34} chosen plaintexts and $2^{34} , but this scenario assumes adversarial control over multiple related keys, which does not align with typical secure key usage protocols. Overall, while the provides robust expansion for high T_1 values, the combination of small block size and related-key vulnerabilities renders RC2 unsuitable for modern applications requiring long-term security against state-level adversaries.

Comparative Weaknesses

RC2's 64-bit block size exposes it to collision attacks via the birthday paradox when encrypting substantial data volumes in modes such as , limiting its applicability compared to AES's 128-bit blocks, which provide exponentially higher resistance to such probabilistic exploits. This structural shortfall mirrors DES's vulnerabilities but contrasts sharply with post-2000 ciphers designed for larger blocks to accommodate petabyte-scale data without feasible preimage or collision recovery. Although RC2 accommodates key lengths up to bits, its permits related-key distinguishing attacks requiring approximately 2^256 chosen plaintexts for full-round exploitation, a feasibility edge over unrelated-key brute-force demands in but indicative of insufficient diffusion margins relative to contemporary standards like -256, where no such practical related-key weaknesses persist post-extensive analysis. Export variants capped at 40 effective bits further eroded trust, enabling exhaustive search in hours on hardware, unlike DES's fixed 56-bit keys which, while brute-forceable by with dedicated , lacked RC2's variable-length flexibility yet avoided deliberate weakening. Performance metrics underscore RC2's obsolescence: on mid-2010s processors, it encrypts at rates 4-6 times slower than , compounded by unoptimized S-boxes and rotation operations ill-suited to vectorized instruction sets like /AVX, rendering it inefficient for high-throughput scenarios where AES leverages via AES-NI for gigabits-per-second speeds. This lag, alongside susceptibility to side-channel leaks in unmasked implementations, prompted deprecation announcements as recent as February 2025, positioning RC2 below even Blowfish in legacy hierarchies despite Blowfish's adaptive keying. Relative to , RC2 offers superior resistance to —requiring over 2^40 known plaintexts versus DES's 2^43—but both succumb to block truncation attacks in multi-gigabyte contexts, a non-issue for or equivalents vetted under long-term scrutiny by bodies like CRYPTREC, which rated RC2's margins adequate in 2001 yet obsolete by 2020 standards amid evolving quantum and multi-core threats.

Usage and Implementation

Historical Applications

RC2 was initially deployed in Lotus Notes software for bulk data , utilizing its symmetric-key capabilities to secure documents, fields, and databases as early as the late 1980s and 1990s. Lotus Notes implementations supported RC2 with key sizes up to 128 bits, though compatibility modes retained 64-bit defaults for older releases. This application leveraged RC2's variable key length and Feistel structure for efficient in collaborative environments. In the mid-1990s, RC2 gained prominence in early Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols developed by , serving as a bulk encryption algorithm in cipher suites for web communications. Netscape's SSL version 2.0, released in 1995, included RC2 variants with 40-bit effective key lengths to comply with U.S. export controls on , enabling international deployment while restricting domestic strong-key (128-bit) usage. These export-grade RC2 suites, often paired with for authentication, were embedded in browsers and servers, facilitating initial secure and web transactions before stronger alternatives like emerged. RC2's export-favorable status, granted in 1989 following NSA-reviewed modifications to its design, positioned it alongside as a preferred option for software vendors navigating regulatory constraints. By the late , however, vulnerabilities in reduced-round and weak-key configurations prompted gradual phase-out in favor of more robust ciphers, though legacy support persisted in some directory servers and protocols into the .

Software and Hardware Support

RC2 implementations are available in several cryptographic libraries, primarily for legacy compatibility rather than active use. The PyCryptodome library in provides RC2 support through its ARC2 module, enabling symmetric with variable sizes up to 1024 bits, though practical is limited by known weaknesses. Microsoft's .NET framework includes the System.Security.Cryptography.RC2 as a base for deriving RC2 implementations, supporting lengths from 40 to 128 bits in environments like .NET 9.0, often required for decrypting older data formats such as files. offers RC2 via the in its legacy provider, allowing modes like with 40-bit keys for , but this requires explicit enabling in configurations post-OpenSSL 3.0 due to of weak ciphers. Other libraries like Bouncy Castle in and in include RC2 engines for ECB and modes, facilitating integration in applications handling historical encrypted content. However, support is waning; deprecated RC2 entirely effective February 10, 2025, citing vulnerabilities to brute-force and differential attacks that undermine its 64-bit block security even with full-strength keys. Modern software distributions, including those in 9, treat RC2 as deprecated functionality, recommending migration to or ChaCha20 for new implementations. Hardware support for RC2 remains negligible, with no widespread dedicated ASIC or FPGA accelerators in commercial processors, unlike AES which benefits from instructions like AES-NI in and CPUs. RC2's design, emphasizing software efficiency over parallelism, has not spurred hardware optimizations; academic efforts focus instead on lightweight ciphers like LED or PRESENT for resource-constrained devices. Custom FPGA implementations exist in research contexts for but lack standardization or performance advantages over software, rendering them impractical for deployment. Thales ProtectServer modules support RC2 keys up to 1024 bits via software-emulated ciphers, but prioritize stronger alternatives in . Overall, RC2's footprint is confined to legacy systems, reflecting its obsolescence in favor of hardware-accelerated modern block ciphers.

Export-Restricted Variants

Export-restricted variants of RC2 were developed to adhere to export controls on cryptographic software, which in the limited strong to domestic use while permitting weakened versions for international distribution. These variants restricted the to 40 bits, significantly reducing the cipher's security margin compared to the full-strength implementations supporting up to 1024 bits. Under regulations from the Bureau of Export Administration (later the Bureau of Industry and Security), software using RC2 with a 40-bit or shorter key qualified for streamlined export licensing, including a seven-day review period for mass-market products. This approach allowed RC2 to be included in exported applications, such as early web browsers and secure email systems, where full key lengths would have triggered prolonged scrutiny or denial. The 40-bit key space, comprising approximately 1.1 trillion possibilities, proved inadequate against brute-force attacks even with hardware; for instance, efforts could exhaust such keys in days or weeks using clusters of workstations. In RC2's design, as specified in 2268, the effective key strength is influenced by the r (the number of mixing rounds, ranging from 1 to 255), which correlates with key bits; export variants typically set r to 40 or used 5-byte (40-bit) input keys, limiting expansion and round iterations accordingly. These weakened forms appeared in protocols like SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 via export cipher suites, such as EXP1024-RC2-CBC or RC2-CBC-40 variants paired with MD5 or SHA-1 for integrity, enabling compliant deployment in international software but exposing data to rapid cryptanalytic recovery by state or well-resourced adversaries. By the late 1990s, regulatory shifts permitted 56-bit RC2 exports after review, but 40-bit versions persisted in legacy systems due to embedded implementations and compatibility needs. Modern assessments classify 40-bit RC2 as obsolete and insecure, with recommendations to disable such suites in favor of algorithms like AES.

Controversies and Criticisms

Impact of U.S. Export Controls

U.S. export controls on , administered under the (ITAR) and later the (), classified encryption technologies as munitions in the , requiring export licenses and limiting key strengths for non-U.S. markets. For RC2, a variable-key-length cipher developed by in 1987, this resulted in "export-grade" variants restricted to 40-bit effective key lengths, far weaker than the domestic 64-bit or higher configurations. These restrictions applied to software implementations, such as those in SSL/TLS protocols and , where RC2/40 was paired with export-limited (512-bit) to comply with Commerce Department reviews, often approved via a streamlined "seven-day" process for mass-market products. The weakened RC2/40 variants proved highly vulnerable, with 40-bit keys brute-forceable in hours using computing resources, enabling decryption of encrypted traffic in products like browsers and Notes international editions. This compromised security for global users of U.S.-developed software, as adversaries could target export versions without needing advanced , while domestic strong versions remained unavailable abroad without licenses. Economically, the controls hindered U.S. firms' competitiveness, reducing sales of encryption-enabled products in foreign markets and prompting competitors to develop unrestricted alternatives overseas. Critics argued the policy undermined by incentivizing weak deployment, fostering a bifurcated where international products lagged in protection and encouraging reverse-engineering or open-source workarounds outside U.S. jurisdiction. By the late , mounting industry pressure led to relaxations; in 1998, the Clinton administration allowed broader exports of 56-bit equivalents, and by January 2000, full-strength RC2 (up to 128 bits) was decontrolled for most commercial uses under guidelines, reflecting recognition of the controls' limited efficacy against global proliferation of strong . These shifts validated concerns that restrictions had accelerated foreign innovation in while failing to prevent adversaries from accessing strong algorithms via non-U.S. sources.

Proprietary Origins and Reverse Engineering

RC2 was developed in 1987 by Ronald Rivest of Data Security under sponsorship from Development Corporation, specifically to provide a symmetric suitable for export in Lotus Notes software while complying with U.S. restrictions on cryptographic exports. The design process included modifications suggested by the to ensure approvability for international distribution, reflecting the era's government oversight of commercial encryption technologies. As a owned by , the algorithm's full specification—encompassing its 64-bit block size, variable key length up to 1024 bits (though typically limited), and 18-round Feistel structure—was not publicly released, distinguishing it from openly documented ciphers like . The nature of RC2 ended in 1996 when the was reverse-engineered from binary implementations in commercial software, likely through disassembly using tools such as Microsoft's CodeView and NuMega's SoftICE. An anonymous party subsequently posted detailing the algorithm to the sci.crypt Usenet newsgroup, enabling widespread scrutiny. This leak occurred amid growing demands for transparency in cryptographic standards, prompted by concerns over and unverifiable security claims in systems. RSA Security responded to the disclosure by officially documenting RC2 in RFC 2268, published on March 1, 1998, which provided a precise mathematical description of the cipher's operations, including the key scheduling and effective parameter r (limiting security to r bits for variants, often 40 or 64). The RFC emphasized RC2's variable-strength design, intended to balance domestic security with compliance, though post-leak analyses revealed practical weaknesses exploitable with modest resources, such as differential cryptanalysis reducing effective security below nominal key sizes. The episode underscored vulnerabilities in relying on obscurity for security, influencing subsequent emphases on open review in cipher design.

Legacy

Influence on Subsequent Ciphers

RC2 exerted limited direct influence on the design of subsequent block ciphers, primarily due to its proprietary nature until its specification was publicly released by in September 1996. Its structure—an unbalanced Feistel network operating on 64-bit blocks with 32-bit sub-blocks, 16 rounds, and key-dependent expansion via a fixed —differed markedly from paradigms in later ciphers like (1994), which employed data-dependent rotations and parameterized rounds, block sizes, and keys for software efficiency, without evident adoption of RC2's mixing operations or effective parameter. , also by , predated RC2's public disclosure, suggesting any shared emphasis on variable parameters stemmed from Rivest's broader design philosophy rather than RC2-specific elements. Post-publication analyses, such as the 1998 Fast Software Encryption paper applying differential and , revealed weaknesses in reduced-round variants and low effective key sizes (e.g., 40 bits for export compliance), underscoring risks in designs and adjustable parameters. These findings contributed to cryptanalytic methodologies refined during the AES selection process (1997–2000), where candidates emphasized fixed parameters, larger blocks (128 bits), and resistance to known attacks, diverging from RC2's approach to favor open, peer-reviewed structures like substitution-permutation networks in Rijndael (selected as ). RC2's vulnerabilities, including related-key attacks on full rounds with 104-bit keys demonstrated in 2001, highlighted the need for thorough , indirectly shaping robustness requirements in successors like and . Overall, RC2 served more as a cautionary example of export-weakened ciphers than a foundational blueprint, with its legacy in prompting transparent standards over closed innovation.

Deprecation and Modern Alternatives

RC2's 64-bit block size renders it vulnerable to practical attacks, notably the demonstrated in 2016, which can recover from approximately 2^{32} blocks (roughly 785 GB of in TLS contexts) by exploiting collisions in mode without requiring key knowledge. This weakness, combined with earlier cryptanalytic results showing distinguishers and related-key attacks that reduce its effective security margin below modern requirements, has led to its deprecation across cryptographic standards and implementations. Agencies such as the NSA classify RC2 among weak ciphers to avoid, recommending its elimination from TLS configurations alongside and . In TLS protocols, RC2 cipher suites were supported in versions up to 1.2 but are absent from TLS 1.3, which mandates with associated data (AEAD) modes incompatible with RC2's design. Libraries like formally deprecated RC2 support in February 2025, citing unresolved vulnerabilities, insufficient scalability in practice, and the availability of superior alternatives. NIST does not include RC2 in its approved symmetric algorithms for federal use, implicitly endorsing its obsolescence through the absence from validations and SP 800-57 recommendations. The primary modern alternative is the (), standardized by NIST in 2001 (FIPS 197) with a 128-bit block size and key lengths of 128, 192, or 256 bits, providing resistance to brute-force and known cryptanalytic attacks at 128-bit levels when used in modes like GCM. AES has undergone extensive analysis, including differential and , confirming its robustness, and is mandated for U.S. government systems. For scenarios requiring stream-like performance or resistance to timing attacks, ChaCha20—a 256-bit key designed by —serves as a complementary option, integrated into TLS 1.3 cipher suites like TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 for broad deployment. These replacements prioritize larger block/key sizes, rigorous peer-reviewed proofs, and , rendering RC2 unsuitable for new or migrated systems.

References

  1. [1]
    RFC 2268 - A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm
    This memo describes a conventional (secret-key) block encryption algorithm, called RC2, which may be considered as a proposal for a DES replacement.
  2. [2]
    RC2 Symmetric Block Cipher | Cryptography | Crypto-IT
    RC2 is a symmetric block cipher, which was particularly popular in the first half of the 90s. The algorithm was secret at first, until it was revealed ...
  3. [3]
    RC2 — PyCryptodome 3.23.0 documentation
    RC2 (Rivest's Cipher version 2) is a symmetric block cipher designed by Ron Rivest in 1987. The cipher started as a proprietary design.
  4. [4]
    RC2 - Thales Docs
    RC2. This algorithm is a 64-bit block cipher with a variable-length key usually 40-bit or 128-bit. RC2 was designed by Ron Rivest and is a trademark of RSA ...
  5. [5]
    RC2 - ASecuritySite.com
    RC2 ("Rivest Cipher") is seen as a replacement for DES. It was created by Ron Rivest in 1987, and is a 64-bit block code and can have a key size from 40 bits ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Analysis of RC2 - CRYPTREC
    Jan 2, 2019 · RC2 works on 64-bit blocks which are divided into four words of each sixteen bits. It is an iterated block cipher where the ciphertext is ...
  7. [7]
    Deprecation Announcement: RC2 - wolfSSL
    Feb 10, 2025 · RC2 is a symmetric-key block cipher that was widely used in the past for data encryption. Developed in 1987 by Ron Rivest, RC2 is now over 35 years old.
  8. [8]
    RC2 Class (System.Security.Cryptography) | Microsoft Learn
    Definition: Represents the base class from which all implementations of the RC2 algorithm must derive.
  9. [9]
    draft-rivest-rc2desc-00 - A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption ...
    Internet Draft Ron Rivest draft-rivest-rc2desc-00.txt RSA Data Security, Inc. Created 1987 Revised March 12, 1992 Revised June 23, 1997 Expires December 22, ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  10. [10]
    RFC 2268 - A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm
    Jan 21, 2020 · This memo describes a conventional (secret-key) block encryption algorithm, called RC2, which may be considered as a proposal for a DES replacement.Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  11. [11]
    (PDF) On the Design and Security of RC2 - ResearchGate
    The block cipher RC2 was designed in 1989 by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. In this paper we describe both the cipher and preliminary attempts to use ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  12. [12]
    [PDF] On the Design and Security of RC2 - COSIC - KU Leuven
    The block cipher RC2 was designed in 1989 by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. In this paper we describe both the cipher and preliminary attempts to use ...Missing: original 1987
  13. [13]
    Information on RFC 2268 - » RFC Editor
    This memo describes a conventional (secret-key) block encryption algorithm, called RC2, which may be considered as a proposal for a DES replacement.Missing: cipher standardization
  14. [14]
    RFC 3217 - Triple-DES and RC2 Key Wrapping - IETF Datatracker
    This document specifies the algorithm for wrapping one Triple-DES key with another Triple-DES key and the algorithm for wrapping one RC2 key with another RC2 ...
  15. [15]
    RFC 2268: A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm
    RFC 2268 RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm March 1998 For example, with an ... published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
  16. [16]
    On the Design and Security of RC2 - SpringerLink
    Oct 16, 1998 · The block cipher RC2 was designed in 1989 by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. In this paper we describe both the cipher and preliminary attempts.Missing: architectural structure<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Related-Key Cryptanalysis of 3-WAY, Biham-DES,CAST, DES-X ...
    We present new related-key attacks on the block ciphers 3-. WAY, Biham-DES, CAST, DES-X, NewDES, RC2, and TEA. Differen- tial related-key attacks allow both ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Related-key cryptanalysis of 3-WAY, Biham-DES, CAST, DES ...
    New related-key attacks on the block ciphers 3WAY, Biham-DES, CAST, DES-X, NewDES, RC2, and TEA are presented, showing how to adapt the general attack to ...<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Sweet32: Birthday attacks on 64-bit block ciphers in TLS and ...
    It is well-known in the cryptographic community that a short block size makes a block cipher vulnerable to birthday attacks, even if there are no cryptographic ...
  20. [20]
    Difference between RC2, RC4, RC5 and RC6
    Apr 1, 2019 · The default key size is 64 bits. It was designed in 1987. It has a heterogeneous round structure with a total of 18 rounds (16 "MIXING" rounds ...
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
    Comparative Analysis of Block Cipher-Based Encryption Algorithms
    The comparison was performed on the following algorithms: DES, 3DES, RC2, and AES (Rijndael). It was concluded that AES outperformed other algorithms in ...
  23. [23]
    Is RC2-CBC at all secure?
    Jul 14, 2015 · RC2 is a currently "unbroken" block cipher; the best known attack is a "related-key attack", ie something which does not really apply in practice.What cryptographic algorithms are not considered secure? [closed]encryption - What do key size and block size mean in cryptography?More results from security.stackexchange.com
  24. [24]
    How secure is 64-bit RC2? - Stack Overflow
    Sep 8, 2010 · 64 bit is not considered very secure IMHO, as 56 bit DES was broken in 22 hours in 1999 (I agree that the algorithm is different) and given the computation ...Missing: cryptanalysis early
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Security in Lotus Notes and the Internet December 1997 - IBM
    Notes uses the RC2 or RC4 algorithms for bulk encryption of data. (See A ... All Notes templates are signed by Lotus Notes Development/Lotus Notes. The ...
  26. [26]
    History of supported key sizes in Notes and Domino
    R6 supported 64 and 128 bit RC2 bulk encryption, and would use 128 bit RC2 if the ID file could only be used with R6+ for other reasons. Notes ID vault. This ...
  27. [27]
    draft-hickman-netscape-ssl-00 - IETF Datatracker
    RC2, RC4 Proprietary bulk ciphers invented by RSA (There is no good reference to these as they are unpublished works; however, see [9]). RC2 is block cipher ...
  28. [28]
    An Overview of SSL (version 2) - Adam Shostack
    SSL supports the RC2 & RC4 with either 128 bits or 40 bits of secret key information, as well as DES, 3 key 3DES, and IDEA. Details of all are covered in ...
  29. [29]
    Symmetric Encryption Algorithms And The Need For Crypto-Agility
    The first members of the RC algorithm family, RC2 and RC4 (aka ARC4 or ARCFOUR), were designed by Ron Rivest (of RSA fame) in 1987. RC2 is a 64-bit block cipher ...
  30. [30]
    EVP_CIPHER-RC2 - OpenSSL Documentation
    DESCRIPTION¶. Support for RC2 symmetric encryption using the EVP_CIPHER API. Algorithm Names¶. The following algorithms are available in the legacy provider:.
  31. [31]
    Package org.bouncycastle.crypto.engines
    HC-128 is a software-efficient stream cipher created by Hongjun Wu. HC256Engine, HC-256 is a software-efficient stream cipher created by Hongjun Wu.<|separator|>
  32. [32]
    Forge - GitHub Pages
    Provides 3DES and DES encryption and decryption in ECB and CBC modes. See CIPHER for examples. RC2. Examples. // generate a random key and IV var key ...
  33. [33]
    Chapter 10. Deprecated functionalities | Red Hat Enterprise Linux | 9
    Deprecated devices are fully supported, which means that they are tested and maintained, and their support status remains unchanged within Red Hat Enterprise ...
  34. [34]
    An Efficient Implementation of LED Block Cipher on FPGA
    In this paper, we investigate the hardware implementation of four different, but similar, lightweight block ciphers: PRESENT, Piccolo, PRINTcipher and LED. The ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Cryptography on FPGAs: State of the Art Implementations and Attacks
    Although typically slower than ASIC implementations, FPGA implementations have the potential of running substantially faster than software implementations. The ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    RC2 - Thales Docs
    The RC2 Cipher requires either a SecretKeySpec or ProtectToolkit-J provider RC2 Key during initialization. The RC2 key may be any length of 8 to 1024 bits. To ...
  37. [37]
    Federal Register, Volume 63 Issue 183 (Tuesday, September 22 ...
    Sep 22, 1998 · ... exporters must submit a classification request to BXA. 40- bit mass market encryption software using RC2 or RC4 may be eligible for a 7-day ...<|separator|>
  38. [38]
  39. [39]
    Department of Commerce regulations on export of encryption products
    ... RC2 with a key space no longer than 40 bits. The RC4 and RC2 algorithms are proprietary to RSA Data Security, Inc. To ensure that the subject software is ...
  40. [40]
    Export Controls | Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information ...
    The software includes encryption for data confidentiality and uses the RC4 and/or RC2 algorithms with a key space of 40 bits. b. If both RC4 and RC2 are used in ...
  41. [41]
    RFC 6101 - The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0
    This document specifies version 3.0 of the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL 3.0) protocol, a security protocol that provides communications privacy over the Internet.
  42. [42]
    A brief history of U.S. encryption policy - Brookings Institution
    Apr 19, 2016 · Exporting encryption and the Clipper chip. The encryption battles of the early 1990s focused primarily on two issues: restrictions on the export ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  43. [43]
    RFC 2633 - S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification
    Jan 21, 2020 · ... RC2/40. 2.7.2 Choosing Weak Encryption Like all algorithms that use 40 bit keys, RC2/40 is considered by many to be weak encryption. A ...
  44. [44]
    Cryptography in the 1990s - MIT Press Direct
    Industry complaints about restrictive export controls on cryptography resulted in agreement on a slightly loosened export policy: seven-day approval for ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Growing Development of Foreign Encryption Products in the Face of ...
    Jun 10, 1999 · This report surveys encryption products developed outside the United States and provides some information on the effect of the United States ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] The Genie Let Loose: Ineffectual Encryption Export Restrictions and ...
    In favor of this position, they have pointed out that the encryption restrictions are largely ineffectual.
  47. [47]
    Source Code - Schneier on Security
    RC2-UNK.ZIP Author : Unknown Date : 1996. Description: The alleged RC2 cipher, posted anonymously to sci.crypt. RC2-FIX.ZIP Date : 21 Jan 98. Description ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Development of the Advanced Encryption Standard
    Aug 16, 2021 · This paper covers the motivation for the development of the AES, the process that was followed, and the problems that were encountered and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  49. [49]
    Encryption Algorithm: Rivest Cipher 2 (RC2) - Scanigma
    Encryption algorithm Rivest Cipher 2 is a block cipher which is theoretically weakened against vulnerabilities (eg: related-key attack, chosen-plaintext attack) ...
  50. [50]
    NSA Provides Direction on Eliminating Obsolete Encryption Protocols
    Jan 6, 2021 · The NSA advises to only use TLS 1.2 or 1.3, avoid SSL 2.0, 3.0, 1.0, and 1.1, and avoid weak cipher suites like NULL, RC2, RC4, DES, IDEA, and ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] Eliminating Obsolete Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol ... - DoD
    Jan 5, 2021 · A cipher suite is identified as obsolete when one or more of the mechanisms is weak. Especially weak encryption algorithms in TLS 1.2 are ...Missing: variants | Show results with:variants
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Part 3: Application-Specific Key Management Guidance
    Jan 1, 2015 · It is very important that each implementation that does not comply with NIST standards and guidelines be evaluated for associated risks and that ...
  53. [53]
    RFC 3268 - Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites for ...
    This document proposes several new ciphersuites. At present, the symmetric ciphers supported by Transport Layer Security (TLS) are RC2, RC4, International Data ...