Reputation
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
3
Newest
 Editor
Impact
~322 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 24 votes cast
Mar
10
comment Better security than SHA1 for signature?
Sparkle has has vulnerabilities due to insecure update URLs. AIUI the known vulnerabilities have been fixed in the latest version, but it'd still be a good idea to use an https update URL and key pinning.
Feb
22
answered Difference between HMAC-SHA1(key, msg) vs SHA1(key + msg)
Feb
21
comment Are checksums essentially non-secure versions of cryptographic hashes?
@ArtjomB. An 8-bit checksum will let you detect any single-bit (or even single-byte) change anywhere in the string; a cryptographic hash truncated to 8 bits would have a 1/256 chance of not detecting a change (or whatever size). Thus, while a crypto is stronger against a malicious opponent, a checksum is better against small random changes (i.e. data transmission errors). Which one you should use depends on what you're trying to protect against. BTW, checksums and CRCs are significantly different things; CRCs protect against several classes of (random) errors that checksums do poorly at.
Mar
19
awarded  Editor
Mar
19
revised Concatenation of two strong hashes may have striking weakness
Added caveat about H_1 being preimage-resistant
Mar
19
comment Concatenation of two strong hashes may have striking weakness
@CédricVanRompay I can't see a way to prove it either, so I'll just add it in as an assumption.
Mar
18
awarded  Teacher
Mar
18
answered Concatenation of two strong hashes may have striking weakness
Sep
15
comment What stops the Multiply-With-Carry RNG from being a Cryptographically Secure PRNG?
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of what "security" means. Note that no RNG that "work[s] by keeping a certain number, say k, of the most recently generated integers, then return[ing] the next integer as a function of those k" can possibly satisfy the next-bit test, because anyone who's seen its k most recently generated integers can predict its entire future output.
Jul
27
comment Is truncating a SHA512 hash to the first 160 bits as secure as using SHA1?
A caveat to the "security implications" section: if the plaintext values are guessable (or chosen from a limited set), an attacker will be able to guess-and-test possible plaintexts. For example, if you hash the State field of an address database, there'll only be 50 distinct hash values, and an attacker won't have much trouble figuring out which is which. Similarly, if you hash the Name field, and the attacker wants to find out if "John Q. Smith" is in your DB, they can hash that and look for a match.
Jul
15
comment What prevents continued hashing of a key from being used as a cipher when xored with plaintext?
Point 3 is a killer. Encrypt something that starts "<!DOCTYPE html>\n" (with a 128-bit hash), and the message is trivial to crack.
Feb
1
awarded  Supporter
Dec
2
comment How to generate a list of unique random strings?
Note that the first two options can be truly random (if they're based on a truly random source); the last is only pseudo-random (at least once it gets past the key size of the cipher).