Reputation
22,271
Next tag badge:
106/100 score
18/20 answers
Badges
4 30 80
Newest
 Constituent
Impact
~484k people reached

May
31
comment Security of the iterated Hill Cipher
@LinearAlgebra, OK, I've edited my answer to show how to break the revised scheme, given your updated question.
May
31
revised Security of the iterated Hill Cipher
added 2042 characters in body
May
31
revised Creating a license system based on asymmetric encryption (RSA or ECDSA)
added 14 characters in body; added 1420 characters in body
May
31
comment Creating a license system based on asymmetric encryption (RSA or ECDSA)
@CodeX, sure. I expanded my answer to elaborate further on revocation (your question #3) and stolen private keys (your question #4).
May
31
revised Creating a license system based on asymmetric encryption (RSA or ECDSA)
added 14 characters in body; added 1420 characters in body
May
31
comment Why is plain-hash-then-encrypt not a secure MAC?
@e-sushi, this question asks whether $\text{Encrypt}(M || H(m))$ is secure, where $H$ is a hash (not a MAC). The question I linked to asks whether $E_k(M || H(M))$ is secure. It's the same question. OK, the latter question focuses on CBC encryption, but the answers there show an attack when $\text{Encrypt}$ is CBC mode encryption, which already answers this question and shows that this question's scheme is not secure in general. And the case of stream ciphers is already handled by crypto.stackexchange.com/q/6069/351. So this question is completely subsumed by existing questions.
May
31
comment Why is plain-hash-then-encrypt not a secure MAC?
possible duplicate of Does CBC encryption of a hash provide authenticity?
May
31
comment The improvement of the private key exponent in the M.Weiner Attack
I'd expect you to do more research on your own before asking here (on this site we expect you to do a significant amount of research before asking). In the future, one way to answer this sort of thing on your own is to do a literature search.
May
31
revised Security of the iterated Hill Cipher
Improve the title.
May
31
answered Security of the iterated Hill Cipher
May
31
answered Creating a license system based on asymmetric encryption (RSA or ECDSA)
May
27
revised What is the “artificial abort” technique?
Explanation from comment thread.
May
24
revised Cryptographic pseudo-random generation of address subsets
added 37 characters in body
May
24
revised Cryptographic pseudo-random generation of address subsets
Add information from fgrieu.
May
22
revised Prefix property for variable length pseudo-random generators
added 487 characters in body
May
22
answered Prefix property for variable length pseudo-random generators
May
22
comment how to use common modulus attack?
This is not a homework-answering or exercise-solving service. We want to help you, but we can't do that if you haven't shown us what you have tried. So, I suggest you edit the question to show us what you have tried and where you got stuck. Finally, make sure you give proper attribution to the source where you copied this from.
May
22
comment Which tamper-protection algorithm provides the shortest output?
@Gilles, as you say, there are two separate issues: (1) uses out of context, and (2) replays. In my opinion, a good solution needs to solve both ("you may want to" is not enough). In my opinion, this is something that is not optional; it's mandatory, if we want to deploy this in practice and be secure. So, I think this answer would benefit from more on how to handle the practical security challenges (the hard parts of this problem are not the crypto algorithms but how to ensure they'll be used appropriately in practice). Optional security will often fall short, because it be left disabled.
May
22
comment Security assessment between $g^{a_ix_i+r_i}$ and $g^{x_i+r_i}$
@curious, that belongs in your question. Don't ask "chameleon questions", where new requirements get revealed or drip-fed to us only after someone posts a valid answer to the original question. Think through your requirements and all relevant information, and make sure they are present in the question from the start.
May
22
comment Security assessment between $g^{a_ix_i+r_i}$ and $g^{x_i+r_i}$
Why are you trying to invent some new mechanism? Why aren't you using standard "semantically secure" public-key encryption? (You can use additively homomorphic public-key encryption, if that's what you need.) Also, I agree with the comments that the requirements don't seem clear. Finally: please edit the question to include all relevant information in the question itself. Don't just drop them in the comment thread. Comments exist only to help you improve the question, and the question needs to stand on its own (without having to read the comments).