Timeline for Why does "2xAES-256" provide "99.99%" security strength whereas "1xAES-128" provides "40%"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2015 at 12:06 | comment | added | SEJPM | @Eric, I guess if you "need" their consultation you have to e-mail them. I think this is standard practice for this kind of company-focused products. Another example: Go and try find an offer for a new eToken, they're on-demand only. | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 10:40 | vote | accept | SEJPM | ||
| Jul 18, 2015 at 5:10 | comment | added | Cat | "Seriously, don't give your money to these clowns." I legitimately cannot even find a way to purchase their products. The only downloads I can find are PDF files, and there's no "buy" button. | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 0:14 | comment | added | mikeazo | @gilles hehe. That is what I get for using a mobile. I could edit it, but... | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 22:45 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @mikeazo “Meat in the middle attack” is a great name for a sandwich! What's the recipe? | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 22:15 | comment | added | Robert NACIRI | Doubling key size don't increase significantly the security as it's claimed on the table labelled "key size vs time to crack" because of the well know "meet in the middle attack". To obtain this level of security it must be mentioned with a Triple Key in EDE mode. And their cracking example of an 6-char AES-256 key in 6d 9h 53' 9" is not so dramatic as a key is represented by only 48 bits. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 22:13 | comment | added | mikeazo | If 2xAES means what I think it means, they must not know about meat in the middle attacks. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 22:01 | comment | added | SEJPM | never even thought about this :) Was wondering how they had constructed the 40% for AES-128 as opposed to the 50% for AES-256-CBC. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 21:56 | history | answered | r3mainer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |