Timeline for Is ChaCha20 alone sufficient for securing data-at-rest?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 0:31 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/645757122043584512 | ||
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:52 | vote | accept | Kar | ||
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:47 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | @Kar Because those only protect against accidental corruption (e.g. a cosmic ray flipping a bit) and not against deliberate manipulation. | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:23 | comment | added | Kar | @CodesInChaos Why won't plain, unencrypted checksum do here though? | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:21 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | @Kar MACs are the cryptographic equivalent of checksums. | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:13 | comment | added | Kar | @CodesInChaos Right. But checksum not address that? | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 14:12 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | @Kar For local files active attacks (AKA Chosen-Ciphertext-attacks) don't matter much, but when you store it in the cloud, the server could return a manipulated file. | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 12:50 | answer | added | SEJPM | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 12:28 | comment | added | Kar | @CodeInChaos Sorry, but how does cloud backup change the threat model if the file itself is already securely encrypted? | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 12:19 | comment | added | Yehuda Lindell | This has nothing to do with ChaCha20 specifically. The question is whether CPA security alone suffices or not. | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 11:41 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | In the age of cloud backup I'd prefer including a MAC. | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 9:43 | history | asked | Kar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |