Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

AES-128 takes a 128-bit key, produces 11 128-bit subkeys out of it with a cryptographically weak function, and uses them in 10 internal rounds. It can be said that the full key is reused 10 times. AES-192 takes a 192-bit key, produces 13 128-bit subkeys out of it (or, equivalently, 9 192-bit subkeys), and uses them in 12 rounds. The full key is reused 8 ...


5

The S-Box was generated when Rijndael was designed, not in any step. It's used in every round in the SubBytes step. The S-box is constant. You could see it as a function taking a byte and returning a byte. It is used to reduce algebraic properties of Rijndael. In fact, this is it: | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f ...


4

It has to do with the alignment between the size of cipher the key and the size of a round key. Since a 256-bit key is twice the size of a round key, the nonlinearity of the key schedule would be aligned to every other block, and that is bad. Here is an example of the round keys generated by the key schedule for a key (hex bytes) of value ...


4

Rcon(9) is 0x1b because 0x80 multiplied by 0x02 is 0x100, which is reduced to 0x00 xor 0x1b in the finite field. Rcon(10) is twice Rcon(9), and so forth. Rcon(0) is 0x8d because 0x8d multiplied by 0x02 is 0x01 in the finite field. If what I mean by finite field is not understood, it is because the numbers you are dealing with are actually polynomials, ...


3

They are referring to the formula for Bézout's identity which calculates the greatest common divisor, extended to a finite field, where 1 is the multiplicative neutral element. From the relation $b(x)a(x)+m(x)c(x)=1$, $$b^{-1}(x)=a(x)\mod m(x)$$ I cant figure out what $a(x)$ and $c(x)$ are? In this case, $b(x)$ is the element for which the inverse is ...


3

I'm not seeing any particularity between the two field that they build, but exists? First off, one basic truth about finite fields is that there is at most one finite field of a given size. Given that both $x^7 + x + 1$ and $x^7 + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + 1$ are both irreducible, they both generate the same finite field. Where they differ is the ...


3

I am using chunks of 1MB and give them a GUID as filename That is fine although unnecessary, the entire input file can be encrypted. These chunks are then first compresses using DEFLATE to minimize attacks based on known Content VERY BAD idea, since you are breaking the input file into pieces, you are now exposing the entropy of specific file ...


3

According to the original NESSIE submission of Whirlpool: "The finite field ${\rm GF}(2^8)$ will be represented as ${\rm GF}(2)[x]/p(x)$, where $p(x) =$ $x^8 +$ $x^4 +$ $x^3 +$ $x^2 +$ $1$ is the first primitive polynomial of degree $8$ listed in [19]. The polynomial $p(x)$ was chosen so that $g(x) = x$ is a generator of ${\rm GF}(2^8) \setminus \{0\}$." ...


2

What you are looking to do can be done, but if you expect it to just work, you are mistaken. Performing the calculation of the inverse here is the easy part, the hard part is the choice of affine transform polynomial and vector, as incorrect choice will lead to an insecure s-box. Multiplicative Inverse The most simple method of calculating the inverse is ...


2

Your assumption is flawed, you are thinking the IV used for encryption and decryption are different, and that the decrypt IV is an output from the cipher. It is only an input, and it is the same for both operations. Therefore it does not leak any information about the key or the plaintext. Is using the IV in such a way, which can keep both sides of a ...


2

I assume you mean that the CBC-mode encryption and decryption process would 'update' the "output IV" will be identical to the most recent ciphertext block. This isn't obvious from your question; for example, the diagrams you show don't show any "output IV" being generated at all. Now, for your specific questions: Does this "Output IV" holds information ...


2

To give some general intuition: Longer keys give the attacker more "degrees of freedom" in a related-key attack. Therefore, defending against related-key attacks likely requires more complex key schedule if the key is long, than if the key is short. That might explain, at a conceptual level, why 256-bit keys require more complexity in the key schedule. ...


2

I guess that a single e-mail to Vincent Rijmen might solve this problem, but I would speculate that the new S-box should have been more hardware-friendly compared to that of Rijndael. The recursive structure of $W$ and smaller constants in the MDS matrix may have required another field representation.


2

As fgrieu already pointed out, using a OWF in the way you describe would make the key schedule not efficiently invertible (or even not invertible at all), meaning you would need more memory/chip space to store the user-input key in order to efficiently encrypt more than one block. In terms of other implications, if the key-state update function $e_n(\cdot)$ ...


1

"Serial concatenation" is not a standard term in cryptography. Without any further information, I would guess that it probably refers to just concatenation. If that's not what it refers to, then your spec is deficient and ambiguous; you'll need to consult with the author of the spec to ask for to clarify what they meant by that phrase.



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