Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

Because the RFC says so. Signing and verifying using this key format is done according to the Digital Signature Standard [FIPS-186-2] using the SHA-1 hash [FIPS-180-2]. It says the same for RSA half a page down. Apparently the signature algorithm is a defined part of the public key method's specification, rather than being negotiated ...


4

It appears that based on your description, the server has a 2048 bit key pair and the clients logging in have 4096 bit key pairs. In this case, do I have the brute force protection of 2048 or 4096 bits? For someone to impersonate one of your users, they would have to break the 4096 bit key. For someone to impersonate the server, they would have to ...


3

As far as we know, it is totally infeasible for anyone to create an RSA private key with a public key that has a specific 32 character fingerprint. This remains true if you give the adversary a budget of a few billion dollars; the best approach for an adversary would be to try to break in and steal (or purchase) the private key (and the second best approach ...


2

It is critical to combine both the key exchange and the secure channel, otherwise someone can mount a man-in-the-middle attack. The way we prevent a man-in-the-middle attack is to do a key exchange, to exchange a session key that both endpoints know but no one else (including the man-in-the-middle) can know, and then authenticate both endpoints. You seem ...


1

You want "a simple chat program that has encryption that is impossible to crack for anyone". This is not a cryptography problem; it is an information security problem. It cannot be solved by cryptography alone. Cryptography might be one tool, but cryptography alone cannot solve this problem. You cannot solve this problem through mere cryptography. ...



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