Reputation
4,468
Next tag badge:
46/100 score
28/20 answers
Badges
1 6 21
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~43k people reached

May
27
revised Why is public key cryptography not widely used in governments?
inserted question mark
May
26
comment Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
@Anon2000 : $\;\;\;$ Your minimal variant is close to CBC mode (you switched the order of E and xor), and subjects the block cipher to key-dependent data. $\:$ I'll be going to bed soon, so I probably won't get anything on it tonight. $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$
May
26
comment Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
@Anon2000 : $\;\;\;$ Actually, my original proof happened to apply to your second variant but not this page's original proposal. $\:$ I fixed it so it would apply to both of those. $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$
May
26
revised Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
fixed proof
May
26
comment Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
@Anon2000 : $\:$ That's what I'm trying to figure out right now. $\;\;\;\;$
May
26
comment Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
The flaw I was utilizing is that the random number generator is exposed to related seeds. $\:$ The only thing I can think of which would fix that is using a PRF instead. $\;\;\;\;$
May
26
comment Is HMAC-MD5 still secure for commitment or other common uses?
If $\: 1 < L \:$ and there are at most $2^{\hspace{.02 in}L}$ permitted keys (in particular, if the key [must have length less than L] or [must have length exactly L]), then the probability of a random setup string being non-binding is less then $1\hspace{-0.02 in}\big/\hspace{-0.05 in}\left(\hspace{-0.02 in}2^{\hspace{.02 in}385-(2\cdot L)}\hspace{-0.05 in}\right)$. $\;\;\;$ That guarantee becomes meaningless slightly above $\: L = 192 \;$. $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$
May
26
comment Is HMAC-MD5 still secure for commitment or other common uses?
I also see no attack on the use of HMACMD5 for Naor's commitment scheme, via G(k) = HMAC(k,100) || HMAC(k,010) || HMAC(k,001), as long as $k$ is significantly less than 192 bits long. $\;$
May
26
comment RSA public key exponent generation confusion
@tylo : $\;\;\;$ It one starts by choosing $e$, then $\: e=3 \:$ will force the primes to have $\hspace{1.31 in}$ remainder 2 mod 3 rather than 1 mod 3. $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$
May
26
revised Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
put in screenshot
May
25
comment Finding public exponent e
"$<n$" should be replaced with "$<n-1$". $\;$
May
25
answered Would this be a plausible authenticated encryption scheme using nested encryption?
May
25
comment Is it practical to use a stream cipher in a block cipher mode?
No, since stream ciphers are very different from block ciphers. $\;$
May
25
comment Authenticated EC key exchange without a signing/signature scheme?
@MaartenBodewes : $\:$ PACE is a particular PAKE protocol. $\;\;\;\;$
May
25
comment Using ECB as RSA encryption mode, but encrypted messages are unique
@user3685322 : $\:$ It would be much better to use TLS, rather than SSL. $\;\;\;\;$
May
24
comment RSA with probable primes
"crept happens" $\: \mapsto \:$ "crept in happens" $\;\;\;\;$
May
24
comment RSA with probable primes
residuals $\mapsto$ residual $\;$
May
24
comment Executing encrypted code?
boazbarak.org/Papers/obfuscate.pdf $\:$ eprint.iacr.org/2014/942 $\:$ security.stackexchange.com/q/24551/49075 $\;\;\;\;$
May
24
comment RSA with probable primes
cr.yp.to/primetests/quartic-20060914-ams.pdf $\;$
May
23
revised Does the One Time Pad rely on confusion or diffusion?
fixed title's spelling