Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

Usually Hashes are not used by themselves for integrity for exactly the reason you state. To make them stronger we take the hash and encrypt it using the private key of the sender. This way anybody who has the sender's public key can decrypt the hash and check it against a new hash of the message, but a man-in-the-middle can not fake it since they do not ...


6

First the theoretical explanations: Integrity and authenticity are different goals to achieve, but both are achieved (for symmetric encryption) with a MAC. You should probably be using encrypt-than-MAC or an authenticated cipher unless you have very good reasons not to. No blanket statements can be made though. HMAC: HMAC is a often used construct. It ...


4

Indeed hashing is used to ensure integrity, but not this way. What you have in mind it seems is sending (msg, Hash(msg)). Indeed this is not secure because of the attack you describe. The first step starts with something you say by yourself: hashing algorithms are universal algorithms The name is not univesal but public, it means anyone knows it. ...


0

The actual data can be omitted from a SignedData encapContentInfo; see current CMS RFC which is not materially changed from earlier versions. The RFC calls this "external signature"; IME it is also called "detached signature" or "clear-sign[ing,ed]", and is widely used. For example S/MIME signed messages usually are a multipart containing the plaintext data ...



Top 50 recent answers are included