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

Feb
13
comment Is signing a hash instead of the full data considered secure?
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Feb
13
comment md5: is reverse length-extension attack possible?
It is important to understand that Merkle–Damgård hashes were never designed to resist attacks of this type. Any properties like this that they have are just the result of pure luck.
Feb
13
answered Is signing a hash instead of the full data considered secure?
Feb
9
comment Is Convergent Encryption really secure?
@PeterDolberg: You are correct. If you use AES-CBC, the IV has to be derived the same way as the key.
Feb
7
comment How to check the strength of an encryption algorithm?
Your question seems to be confusing two different things. The question itself asks how to check the strength of an algorithm. But the body says you want to check if an application is secure. These are two totally different questions with totally different answers. (And the algorithm has to be known secure before there's a chance the application is secure, so one comes before the other.)
Feb
5
comment Source for examples with broken cryptography
@CodesInChaos: +1. Great link. There are some 10 SHA-3 candidates which were completely broken.
Feb
5
comment Why does the recommended key size between symmetric and asymmetric encryption differ greatly?
Short answer: In order to provide comparable levels of security.
Jan
29
comment Is there a length-preserving encryption scheme?
To 100% clarify, you are looking for an encryption algorithm that maps every possible binary input with an integral number of bytes to a encrypted output of the same length. Is that correct? And you understand the inherent security problems with such an algorithm? (No defense against corruption, replay attacks, and so on.)
Jan
19
comment Is it safe to use RSA as a proof-of-work system?
In the vast majority of realistic applications, any proof of work system can be parallelized simply by requesting many challenges from the server.
Jan
19
comment Is it safe to use RSA as a proof-of-work system?
Another option is to have the server generate two primes and give the client the product of the two primes. The client must factor the product and return the smaller prime.
Jan
19
comment A proof-of-work random number generation system for Pokémon
I think that's a distinction without an actual difference. If it doesn't happen, what difference does it make if it didn't happen because it was impossible or because it was unlikely? If I die without having won the lottery, does it matter to me that it wasn't impossible?
Jan
17
revised What does a “cycle” mean in cryptography benchmarks?
deleted 31 characters in body
Jan
15
answered What does a “cycle” mean in cryptography benchmarks?
Jan
15
answered A proof-of-work random number generation system for Pokémon
Jan
15
answered Is the One Time Pad (OTP) considered a cryptographic hash function?
Jan
15
comment Is the One Time Pad (OTP) considered a cryptographic hash function?
@Woot4Moo: Without a compression function, OTP is not a hash. With any non-trivial compression function, OTP is not just OTP anymore. With a trivial compression function, OTP is not cryptographically secure. But ignoring that, OTP is reversible, so useless as a hash function.
Jan
9
comment Why is ciphertext from low entropy plaintext not compressible?
It would be a crappy encryption scheme that didn't hide the fact that the plauntext was so compressible. The whole point of encryption is to deny someone who has the ciphertext any information about the plaintext. (Other than that it can have no more entropy than the ciphertext has -- that's unavoidable.)
Dec
18
comment Good enough deterministic PRNG based on hashes
@IlmariKaronen: Why shows why you should never roll your own crypto algorithm.
Nov
10
comment Can there be two hash functions without common collisions?
The answer to "what do I do about it" is simple: Since you get to choose the hash algorithms, just choose algorithms such that the probability of such a collision is low enough that you can ignore it. (Say, less than one hundredth the probability that you'll fail by your most likely failure mechanism with comparable failure consequences.)
Nov
6
revised finding collision for truncated SHA1 hash output
added 252 characters in body