Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

It is safe, in the case that you have MACs which are independently keyed (or at the very least, the cryptographically secure MAC is independently keyed from all the other ones). This can be seen not by an argument from randomness, but from a simple observation that it were not true, then an attacker could attack the secure MAC by generating the insecure ...


2

($\hspace{.02 in}$packet $\approx$ chunk) They put a packet number into the plaintexts, and mac-then-encrypt the packets separately.


5

The attack outlined by Drlecter is valid for any deterministic MACs (that is: with the MAC a function of message and key) with an iterated structure and an $n$-bit state. It relies on internal state collisions, expected to occur after about $2^{n/2}$ messages (the birthday bound), that can allow forgery once discovered. I'll illustrate this in the case of ...


2

Okay. So first up, let's eliminate encrypt-then-sign. Why is this a problem? The idea behind a signature is to prove that a message came from me even in the presence of malicious actors. If a malicious actor changes the ciphertext under the signature, clearly this invalidates the signature as per expectations, however, that is only one possible attack ...


1

Moxie Marlinspike calls it in his article http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/the-cryptographic-doom-principle/ the doom principle: if you have to perform any cryptographic operation before verifying the MAC on a message you’ve received, it will somehow inevitably lead to doom. He also demonstrates two attacks which are possible because of trying to ...


2

Just for completeness sake, CBC is defined as follows: The error you have made is that: $$M;N = (M_1, ..., M_n, N_1 ⊕ \mathbf{T_m}, N_2, ..., N_n)$$ (I've changed notation from M||N to M;N to reflect this isn't just concatenation) You need to cancel the tag from the message $M$, not the tag from the $N$ message. In that case, $T_{M;N}=T_N$ as required.



Top 50 recent answers are included