Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

Yes, it's the same XOR. It gets used inside most of the algorithms, or just to merge a stream cipher and the plaintext. Everything is just bits, even text. The word "hello" is in ASCII 01101000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111. Just normal bits, grouped in 5 bytes. Now you can encrypt this string with a random string of 5 bytes, like an One-time pad. ...


9

No, you can reuse a message as often as you want with the OTP. (But never reuse the key!) What happens if you reuse a key? The attacker can xor the two encrypted messages (ciphertexts) and gets the xor of the two plaintexts. The xor of two messages is highly insecure and can be easily turned into two plaintexts with some know patterns. What happens if you ...


7

The symbol of the circle with the + in it is one of many symbols for exclusive-or. XOR, EOR, EXOR, ⊻, ⊕, ↮, and ≢. Binary OR is true when either input is true; binary XOR is true when exactly one input is true. If both inputs are true, the XOR result is false. One property of this is that if either input bit flips, the output bit will also flip. That's sort ...


6

Yes, the XOR used in cryptography means the same bitwise XOR operator you're familiar with. And yes, to securely encrypt a message with XOR (alone), you do need a key that is as long as the message. In fact, if you have such a key (and it's completely random, and you never reuse it), then the resulting encryption scheme (known as the one-time pad) is ...


6

Well, if we have plaintext^shiftedPlaintext, what we have is the values $P_i \oplus P_{i+k}$, where $k$ is the length of the shift. What does this imply? Well, if we consider the values $P_i \oplus P_{i+k}$, $P_{i+k} \oplus P_{i+2k}$, $P_{i+2k} \oplus P_{i+3k}$, ... we get a chain where, if we guess one of the values $P_{i+nk}$ for some $n$, we can ...


5

As fgrieu notes in the comments, the protocol might not even work reliably in the absence of adversaries: if the tag fails to receive the reader's reply of "True", the keys will get out of sync. (If that happens, the tag will just retry the next exchange with the old key, so this could be fixed by having the reader remember one more "subkey". But the ...


5

This is not a mathematical proof. A notable place it fails to be a proof is here: Pay attention to which cipher text I use, look up to match the message with the cipher-number below. $$ cipher1⊕cipher3=character1⊕character3⊕IV1⊕IV2$$ (Note that the cipher BOTH use the SAME KEY, but they remain secure because of the two different IV) This line is ...


4

Your cipher is a synchronous stream cipher build on a random number generator. For cryptographically secure random number generators (CSRNG), this is a secure stream cipher. The problem is, that your random seed is way too small for any security. Trying all possible seeds and seeing if the decryption result makes some sense (assuming the plaintext makes ...


3

There is of course but because of carry bits there will be data-dependent "nonlinear" terms. If I do it for 2 bits you can get the idea. It gets unwieldy but you can easily write code to do it for longer bitlengths. The list below is an XOR table expressed as integers: $$ \begin{array}{c|ccc} \oplus & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline 0 & 0 & ...


3

This partial answer establishes (rather trivial) lower and upper bounds for the asymptotic hardness of the problem, assuming $h$ behaves like an $n$-bit wide random function. If one hashes $m$ messages $M$, then computes $f(i,j,k)=h(M_i)\oplus h(M_j)\oplus h(M_k)$ for $(i,j,k)\in\mathbb {Z_m}^3$, that's $m^3$ results, with most values duplicated at least 6 ...


3

Rather than LuaCrypto or some other Lua binding to some (blazing fast) low-level cryptographic library in some other language; I'm assuming that you want a "pure Lua" implementation. Would one of the following work for you? ARCFOUR in pure Lua (a) (b) (c) (d) Lua wiki: Cryptography (b) Pure LUA encryption (d) "Very simple string Encryption"(w) (k) yet ...


2

There are two possibilities here: AES is secure, in which case no one can open your encryption without knowing your keys, regardless of whether you layer anything else on top of AES. AES is not secure and someone knows how to break it. In that case the security of your encryption might only be as strong as the second layer of encryption. In neither case ...


2

No. As the key should be fully random - a premise that invalidates the use of an OTP in practice - that should not matter at all.


2

The standard random number generator, in languages like Java or Python, does not generate real random numbers but pseudorandom numbers determined by an initial seed value. If an attacker can somehow guess or determine this seed value, they can reconstruct the entire sequence of pseudorandom outputs. Furthermore, the default pseudorandom number generators ...


2

Paŭlo Ebermann has given a good answer from a strict cryptographic perspective, and David Cary has given many useful engineering considerations. I want to add, or maybe prefix, these answers with some more engineering considerations. The main problem is that bitwise operations in Lua (5.2 at least) are very slow and the implementation ComputerCraft can ...


2

Maarten appears to make it look like it's an impossible (or, at least, an exceedingly difficult task) to recover the two plaintexts. Indeed, if you literally know nothing about the plaintexts, it can be difficult. However, you typically have a reason you are interested in the messages, and hence often have a clue as to what language they might be. If the ...


2

It's exclusive or (or XOR), corresponds to $x \oplus y := x+y \pmod 2$ for single bits, i.e., scalars. It is sometimes used for binary vectors as well, whereby two bitvectors of length $n$ $$ \mathbf{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$$ and $$ \mathbf{y}=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$$ result in $$ \mathbf{x}\oplus \mathbf{y}=(x_1\oplus y_1,\ldots,x_n \oplus y_n) $$ i.e., a bitwise ...


2

Well, if you construct what you described you basically create a function $f: \{0,1\}^{2m} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m$. As you correctly pointed out these two strings give the same when xor'ed. So the messages $10101111$ and $00000101$ will result in the same xor and hence will get mapped to the same hash, resulting in a second preimage as you found two $x,x'$ ...


2

It turns out that this is not very difficult to solve. It also looks like this is part of a public cryptography challenge, so rather than giving it all away, I'll just provide you with a couple of pointers. First take a look at this: There is a clear repeating pattern every 5 bytes. This suggests two things: (i) an XOR key with a length of 5 was used ...


1

First: Analyzing code is off-topic on this site, don't expect much. To the question: "Never write your own crypto" is a statement, that is all too often disregarded. Without digging deep, it looks like some self-made (and totally insecure) algorithm: The key is not used at all, therefore it is basically a streamcipher (one symbol at a time) with a ...


1

For example, let say that you have a message: "100 dollars should be moved." and you encrypt it with OTP. Then everybody can just take the first character "1" and change it to a 9 by XOR the 1 from the cipher-text and then XOR a "9" with the key you got. What you are describing is what happens if an attacker introduces changes in the ciphertext by a ...


1

Is CBC mode in OTP more secure? No. If your one time pad satisfies the required properties (it's truly random, the attacker has no information about it, and it's only used once), then OTP already has perfect secrecy; playing around with how it works can't make things better. If your one time pad doesn't satisfy the required properties, then all bets ...


1

XORing a key and message is called a one time pad. It is perfectly secure, providing confidentiality, when used correctly. That last part is the hard part, along with finding a situation in which you only need confidentiality.


1

There's a lot of ways to attack this. The first thing to notice is that if you know the value of plaintext at index $i$, you can then deduce the value of all the plaintext bytes at index $i+8k$; for all integers $i$ (!). That's because the relation between plaintext and ciphertext bytes is $P_{i} = C_{i} \oplus P_{i-8}$; if you know $P_{i-8}$ (and, of ...


1

The keystream is as long as the message, so you don't want to send that to the receiver. The keystream is generated by a much shorter key (e.g., 128-bit private key). That is what the receiver needs in order to decrypt the message. So, how do you get that to the receiver? Well, clearly you can't just send it in the clear or anyone watching the channel would ...


1

Anyone who has the keystream and the ciphertext can trivially calculate the plaintext — it's a xor operation bit by bit. Sending the keystream alongside the ciphertext would completely defeat the purpose of encryption. The principle of stream ciphers is that the sender and the receiver agree on an algorithm, a secret key and some parameters, and both ...


1

Use AES-128, the instruction set in most CPU's (AES-NI) speeds up the encryption and does not put to much load on your CPU. I would use CBC but there might be better mode operations for encrypting files. Also don't forget to use a MAC. Using a one time pad (OTP) is nice but what you're doing is not an OTP it's more a Vigenère cipher. If you were to use OTP ...


1

You're using bytewise xor, and three plaintexts $x,y,z$ with a small alphabet (A-Z, which I assume means ASCII values 0x41-0x5a). Then knowing $a \oplus x$, at a certain index, we know all possible values of $a$, at that same index, namely $\{0x41 \oplus (a \oplus x),\ldots, 0x5a \oplus (a \oplus x)\}$. But we have 2 more constraints from $a \oplus y$ and $a ...


1

Unless you know more about the plaintexts two ciphertexts may not convey all the information to reconstruct the two messages. For instance if you have a bit 0 then both messages may contain a 0 at that location or they may both contain a 1. If you have a 1 message 1 may contain a 0 and message 2 may contain a 1, but it could also be the other way around. ...


1

The exact details depend on the logic family but basically The difference is that the charge representing those "1" bits need to be discarded somehow. This is done by switching the output to ground, 1^0 is 1 so no charge need to go away but 1^1 is zero meaning at least two gates get discharged to ground slightly raising its voltage due to the non zero ...



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