Timeline for Should we MAC-then-encrypt or encrypt-then-MAC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2017 at 8:41 | comment | added | Pacerier | Just note that "performance benefit" is not going to be any relevant if encrypt-mac itself was insecure. | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 3:53 | comment | added | Jack O'Connor | @xiaobai I think the idea is that it makes it (slightly) harder for an attacker to DOS you in some (niche) situations. In a DOS attack, all of the packets flooding your server might be failing to authenticate, and the rate at which your server could drop them might matter. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | Penghe Geng | That's such a tiny performance boost, given the vast, vast majority messages will be correct messages and will go through two steps anyway, that this benefit can be all but ignored, IMHO. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 18:33 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 26, 2015 at 19:01 | |||||
| Dec 26, 2015 at 18:31 | history | answered | Jack O'Connor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |