Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

To start with, it's certainly not a bad idea to avoid SHA-1 when other algorithms exist, which do not have the SHA-1 weaknesses to anyone's knowledge. The security of SHA-1 depends on how you're using it. The vulnerability is what's known as a collision vulnerability: an attacker has the ability to create two input strings with the same SHA-1 hash with less ...


4

Well, if the hash function is weak, then the attacker might be able to take a valid signature for a signed message, and find a second message for which the signature for this first would also validate for the second. For example, if Alice signs the message "I like chocolate", what Bob might do is find a second message "Alice owes Bob $13,106,107.57", and ...


0

"if everybody know message after it is decrypted there is" still a point in padding, since it would (hopefully) stop people from learning the message before it is decrypted. It would probably be better to sign the message with your private key, rather than encrypt the message with your private key. RSA needs padding for signatures too, although that ...


1

A digital signature requires the person/entity doing the signing to be the ONLY one with access to the private key. So by transferring the document AND the key to your server it basically invalidates the whole process as you can now forge the signature of the user. The process works as follows: The private key transforms the original in a unique way. The ...


3

It is logically impossible to transfer a private key. The key will continue to be a signature key, but it will cease to be "private" the minute it is transferred. A signature key that isn't private isn't a private key. If you want the document to be signed by the user (in any semantically coherent sense), this operation has to take place on a device ...



Top 50 recent answers are included