Reputation
3,637
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
8 23
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~83k people reached

6h
comment Why is OCB-AES mode not becoming a standard for authenticated encryption?
@figlesquidge It's available for some specific uses under a license that, among other things, prohibits military use. It also prohibits all kinds of other uses, for example commercial use in embedded systems. It's called the "non-military use" license for convenience, to identify that particular license by one of its key restrictions, not because it permits all non-military uses.
6h
comment Why is OCB-AES mode not becoming a standard for authenticated encryption?
The non-military license is actually three licenses, none of which permit, for example, commercial use in embedded systems. That the use is non-military is just one of the requirements that license has.
Apr
4
comment Why does the FBI ask Apple for help to decrypt an iPhone?
@DmitryRubanovich I don't understand the distinction you are making between "stored internally" and "stored on the chip".
Apr
4
comment Why does the FBI ask Apple for help to decrypt an iPhone?
@DmitryRubanovich You say "if the key is only stored on the chip", but the question specifically assumes that any hardcoded data stored on chips can be read.
Mar
31
awarded  Nice Answer
Feb
19
comment Why does the FBI ask Apple for help to decrypt an iPhone?
@DmitryRubanovich You don't run it on the chip, you run it on an emulator. Did you read the question? It says, "including any hardcoded data that may be encoded in chips or whatever".
Feb
18
comment Why does the FBI ask Apple for help to decrypt an iPhone?
This is all interesting, but it doesn't seem to answer the question actually asked. The question says, "(including any hardcoded data that may be encoded in chips or whatever)". With this assumption, they can try all the class keys without help from Apple. And you don't refute the assumption.
Aug
13
awarded  Yearling
Jun
23
awarded  Caucus
Apr
18
awarded  Nice Question
Oct
5
reviewed Reject Why do we need asymmetric algorithms for key exchange?
Aug
28
comment Is there a hash function which has no collisions?
@supercat All you've shown is that the OP is probably making the same mistake you are, believing that it's better to make things impossible than impractical. For practical purposes, which is all that matters, there is no difference. Bijections have huge practical disadvantages and no practical advantages.
Aug
27
comment Is there a hash function which has no collisions?
@supercat That's just not a valid argument. Impossibility is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from sufficiently impractical. For example, it's trivial to prove that public key cryptosystems cannot possibly make decryption by an attacker impossible (by trial encryption, for example), but such schemes are entirely practical. If you insisted an alarm system make burglary impossible, you'd use no alarm system at all, and that's foolish. You just need to make it impractical.
Aug
13
awarded  Yearling
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
6
awarded  Nice Answer
Feb
20
awarded  Nice Question
Feb
4
comment Signing the hash of a key with the same key
Would people really use a signature scheme were signing a piece of public information could compromise your signing key? Wouldn't that be an obvious catastrophic deficiency?
Nov
22
awarded  Enlightened
Nov
22
awarded  Nice Answer