network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 7 months |
| seen | Oct 15 '12 at 23:59 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Oct 14 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Oct 14 |
comment |
Increase number of rounds for SPN and Feistel ciphers @PaŭloEbermann: Nah, that wasn't really what I was going for... a bit misleading maybe. I was merely trying to present my thoughts on advantages from using a higher number of rounds from a practical point of view. Pointing out that the encryption itself is not "stronger", but would take longer time to crack (as it would be so much slower) using some primitive attack - such as bruteforce. Somewhat indirectly comparing it with cracking hashes, adding the time consumption to its advantage. |
|
Oct 14 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Oct 14 |
answered | Is it safe to hold key file's hash in application |
|
Oct 14 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Oct 14 |
accepted | Increase number of rounds for SPN and Feistel ciphers |
|
Oct 14 |
comment |
Increase number of rounds for SPN and Feistel ciphers Okay! So I think I'm starting to get the hang of it... then, a ridiculously large number of rounds would indeed obscure the clear text even more, yet a philosophical question as of whether it really makes the whole encryption "stronger". Am I right? However, this will of course have its payoff in that the encryption, as well as decryption, will be slow as !!!, yet to actually bruteforce the enciphered text, you'd have to decrypt at least some blocks to check for success, thus, does this not answer the philosophical question of security? Maybe not harder, but somewhat more "painful", to crack? |
|
Oct 14 |
awarded | Student |
|
Oct 14 |
asked | Increase number of rounds for SPN and Feistel ciphers |
