Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
4
Newest
 Scholar
Impact
~1k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 3 votes cast
Apr
22
comment Is there a reason that the N value in scrypt is limited to powers of two?
It turns out upon further inspection that this is not the only modification that would need to be made. The X[16] bit was an optimized version of Integrify. Without it being N being a power of two, my understanding is that this is not accurate. However, I can't quite understand the paper well enough to implement it myself and can not find a reference implementation with arbitrary N value support
Apr
19
asked Is there a reason that the N value in scrypt is limited to powers of two?
Mar
21
awarded  Scholar
Mar
21
accepted Ensuring that an operation takes a relatively specific amount of time, but easily verify the result
Mar
21
comment Ensuring that an operation takes a relatively specific amount of time, but easily verify the result
@RickyDemer wow this looks like exactly the kind of reading material I was looking for. I just wish I knew more to understand it all easier :)
Mar
21
comment Ensuring that an operation takes a relatively specific amount of time, but easily verify the result
@RickyDemer very interesting and seems to solve my problem. However, I had rather not be reliant on prime numbers due to the possibilities of quantum computers becoming practical
Mar
21
asked Ensuring that an operation takes a relatively specific amount of time, but easily verify the result
Sep
5
comment Will rehashing an SHA256 hash continually, eventually produce every possible value?
See also for this bit on truncating hashes: security.stackexchange.com/questions/34796/…
Sep
4
comment Will rehashing an SHA256 hash continually, eventually produce every possible value?
Hmm.. interesting logic. If only the resources existed to practically test if it was true
Sep
4
asked Will rehashing an SHA256 hash continually, eventually produce every possible value?
May
3
awarded  Student
Apr
27
comment Requiring a “supervisor” key pair and a “user” key pair to decrypt multiple-recipient messages
After pondering on this solution a while longer, I came to a bit of a stand-still. Mainly, I never want for any one person to have the complete key for unlocking the public message. Say Jim supervises over Alice and Matt. In this proposed method, the same key would potentially be encrypted with different private-keys, giving attackers a possible way in (since they know the text contained). Maybe double symetric encryption? I'm not sure
Apr
24
awarded  Supporter
Apr
23
comment Requiring a “supervisor” key pair and a “user” key pair to decrypt multiple-recipient messages
Actually that might not matter. I'm still interested in the answer, but in this scenario it might be better for if Jim died, then all the recipients could come together and unlock it or something
Apr
23
comment Requiring a “supervisor” key pair and a “user” key pair to decrypt multiple-recipient messages
How would this work with N number of destination parties?
Apr
21
asked Requiring a “supervisor” key pair and a “user” key pair to decrypt multiple-recipient messages
Apr
21
awarded  Autobiographer