Hot answers tagged

37

Are checksums basically toned-down versions of cryptographic hashes? As in: they are supposed to detect errors that occur naturally/randomly as opposed to being designed to prevent a knowledgeable attacker's meticulous engineering feat? That is one way to look at it. However, hash functions have many purposes. They are also meant to be one-way (an attacker ...


26

Yes, there are advantages to the attacker. Using a well vetted encryption algorithm provides a better assurance of security. There may be cryptographic algorithm flaws and/or coding mistakes. As noted, relying on the algorithm being private just adds a layer of false security.


21

Observation: An individual 1-byte pearson hash behaves like an 8 bit block cipher, encrypting the initial state using the message as key. This means that given a fixed message, each possible initial state produces a different output. This implies that a combined hash will never contain duplicate bytes. Without this property a hash would forget about the ...


18

In practice, CRC operations are often started with a nonzero state. Because of this, the actual equation is usually of the form: $$crc(a) \oplus crc(b) = crc( a \oplus b ) \oplus c$$ for some constant $c$ (which depends on the length of $a$, $b$). An alternative way of expressing this is, for three any equal-length bitstrings $a, b, c$, we have: $$crc(a)...


16

You have clarified the question as asking about whether replacing ShiftRows with a random byte permutation would strengthen AES against differential attacks. It would not. ShiftRows and MixColumns were carefully selected to work in tandem, such that every byte affects every other byte in the state within just two rounds. MixColumns ensures that every ...


12

What choice did they have? F1 is a bitwise function with three inputs and one output. There are $2^8 = 256$ such functions. Only 70 of them are "unbiased" (i.e. have as many 0 and 1 outputs in their image). If you further require that each input, as well as the order of inputs, matters for the output, you are left with only 36. However, those 36 are all ...


11

The main advantage is that using a proprietary algorithm gives you access to trade secrets like additional cryptographic attacks that other algorithms fall to but to which the proprietary algorithm is resistant. Whether this is important depends on the amount of trust you have in the vendor. As other answers have noted, usually the staff of any one ...


10

NO, we can't apply an hill-climbing algorithm to Diffie–Hellman. In order to break Diffie-Hellman key exchange, it is enough for Eve to reverse exponentiation modulo the public prime $p$; that is, given $g^x\bmod p$, find $x$. That's the Discrete Logarithm Problem. We do not know that hill-climbing can help for that (or the slightly less general DH problem)...


10

The distinction is that ECDSA solves a problem that HMAC does not. If you need that problem solved, then you need to do ECDSA rather than HMAC; if you do not, then HMAC works just as well (and is a lot cheaper). With HMAC, here is what we have: we have an authenticator that has a secret key. It takes a message, and gives that (and the secret key) to the ...


10

Because it is not secure enough. Hash functions rely a lot on diffusion (a single bit change must change half of the other bits) and confusion (the value of a bit should depend on the value of other bits). This is also known as the avalanche effect. Because it lacks a permutation, my first intuition: it lacks diffusion and has weakness to differential ...


10

In whitebox cryptography the attacker is supposed to have access to every detail of the computation and the goal of this implementation is to protect the key, to -usually- avoid it is used on a classical no-whitebox implementation on a different platform. The goal is that an attacker having access to the whole computation and intermediate values cannot ...


10

The answer to this question is not straightforward and has a lot to do with the "conference culture" of computer science. Unlike other fields, the main publication venues for CS are conferences and not journals. This isn't to say that journals don't have an important role; rather, you don't follow journals to see what research is being done - you follow ...


9

The only advantage I can think of is that they're able to put "State of the art encryption" on their website. But even then, those with a trained eye may spot it as an issue, therefore rendering it as yet another disadvantage. But other than that pseudo-advantage, there are none. Chances are overwhelmingly good that this new cipher, having been ...


9

I assume that you mean the S-box. The answer is NO! Randomly chosen S-boxes are not good choices for differential and linear cryptanalysis. When Biham and Shamir presented differential attacks on DES, one of the things that they showed was that if you replace the S-boxes in DES with randomly chosen ones, then the differential attack becomes much more ...


9

I believe the concept you're looking for is a cryptographical hash. This is a function that takes a (potentially) long input, produces a short (fixed length) output, and for which it is impractical to find two different inputs that generate the same output. It is a fixed function; anyone (including your customer) can generate a hash for any input. How it ...


8

Your doubts are absolutely valid. Disguising the algorithm is not a valid argument for security. It also contradicts to Kerckhoffs Law. It (the algorithm) should not require secrecy, and it should not be a problem if it falls into enemy hands; Designing cryptographic algorithms (ciphers, hashfunctions, ...) is a long and complicated process. In ...


8

Grover's algorithm treats the function it is evaluating as a black box and finds, with high probability, an input to the black box such that it outputs a specified value in $O(N^{1/2})$ evaluations of the function. Since Grover's algorithm works on the function as a black box, your modification does not hinder Grover's algorithm at all in finding the ...


8

I think it's more helpful to think of checksums as toned-down versions of message authentication codes (not hashes). Message authentication codes (MACs) are designed to detect any modification to a message, while it is in transit. They are secure against even adversarially-chosen modifications. Checksums are designed to detect some modifications to a ...


7

Most standard-use iterative hash functions (including SHA-512) are build in a way that these types of operation are not possible (without breaking the hash function). They work generally in this way: The message is split in same-size blocks (usually with some padding at the end to fill the last block): $pad(M) = M_0 || M_1 || M_2 ... || M_n$. There is ...


7

For any $x,y$ represented by $\{0, 1\}$, $x \lor y = 1 - (1-x)(1-y)$. It follows, any one-multiplication homomorphic scheme would do. It also follows, just additively homomorphic scheme would be not enough.


7

Custom crypto can be valuable when other aspects are more important than the confidentiality guarantee, and the well-known ciphers don't address those aspects. A custom cipher or custom application of a cipher would tend to offer a weaker guarantee of confidentiality than well-tested systems. But some users of encryption can handle an eventual breach so ...


7

Thanks for the question! You are correct that there is a bug here. Indeed, the sentence "choose $\mathbf{b}_i$ s.t. $\ldots$" makes no sense: the LHS is in $H$, but the RHS may not be. Fortunately, there is a simple fix which guarantees $\mathbf{y}'_i \in H$. (This must have been what we intended in the first place, based on how the rest of the proof goes;...


7

Yes. There is an $\Omega(\log n)$ lower bound on ORAM. Therefore directly using ORAM to transform a non-oblivious algorithm to oblivious algorithm would incur a logN overhead. It is an open problem to design an ORAM matching the lower bound. No. There exists algorithms that do not have more efficient solution. As an apparent example, accessing a memory cell ...


6

First, I would like to point you to this answer. Copying the TL;DR from there: Multiple encryption addresses a problem that mostly doesn't exist. You are better off using a single well chosen algorithm. That said, here are answers to some of your questions: A longer password adds more layers of encryption in this hypothetical scenario and thus ...


6

The scheme you describe is essentially same as the "SIV construction"* introduced by Rogaway and Shrimpton in their 2007 paper "Deterministic Authenticated-Encryption: A Provable-Security Treatment of the Key-Wrap Problem". This construction takes a PRF (such as HMAC) and a conventional IV-based encryption scheme (such as, say, a block cipher in CTR mode), ...


6

Many properties of boolean functions are used in stream and block cipher design, e.g., when they are used as filtering and combining functions. Some important examples are: Nonlinearity (minimal Hamming distance of the truth table of the boolean function from affine functions), must be high for resisting linear/affine approximation attacks. Correlation ...


5

Yes you could use a hash function as round function, but if you are using the "same key" over all rounds, you are vulnerable to slide attacks. Using a hash function is not a very good idea. Your round function should not introduce biases, should not lead to special differences (attack: differential cryptanalysis), and it should also not be writable as a ...


5

The numbers $n$ (coding source) and $m$ (coding index for a given source) can be combined into a single bitstring; e.g. with $0\le m<2^u$ and $0\le n<2^v$, as a bitstring of $\lceil u+v\rceil$ bits. Then, converting that single bitstring into a unique random-like number can be done by encryption with a secure block cipher with block width $w\ge u+v$ ...


5

As I noted in another answer, Auguste Kerckhoffs published his principles in the scientific/academic journal “Journal des sciences militaires, vol. IX, pp. 5–38 in his article "II. DESIDERATA DE LA CRYPTOGRAPHIE MILITAIRE.", Jan. 1883. So, when you ask since when academics and cryptographers “might” have been accepting (and even applying) those rules, the ...


5

No, or at least, if you can, you have an Extremely Significant result; you've just shown that Paillier is a Fully Homomorphic system, and so it could perform any operation on encrypted data (and in a way that's significantly more efficient than any other known FHE system). Here's why: The $|a - b|$ operation is effectively an $XOR$; if the ciphertexts $a, b$...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible