Timeline for "open-key model" attacks, why would one be concerned?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 17:55 | vote | accept | b degnan | ||
| Feb 2, 2017 at 17:53 | answer | added | Ella Rose | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 17:34 | comment | added | Ella Rose | @bdegnan I'm not sure if you still would like a reference to AES related key attacks, but here is one | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 5:18 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/766504491139170304 | ||
| Aug 18, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | b degnan | Could you point me to a reference for AES-256 attacks? I couldn't find a reference, but I'm a bit of a novice and I am catching up on my literature. I'm just sort of curious because let's say that I have an embedded system, or something that uses a 64-bit key, which isn't strong. It seems like the logical thing would be to change the key every hour. I guess as long as the keys aren't algorithmically connected. | |
| Aug 18, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | I can only hazard a guess, but e.g. AES-256 has an issue with related key attacks. That doesn't mean that AES is insecure when used for most modes of operations as they will operate without related keys. But it is an issue with regards to using the block cipher as component for other functions such as cryptographic hashes, RNG's etc. So I would interpret it as: use this cipher for confidentiality, but don't change the key of the cipher often within an algorithm or protocol. | |
| Aug 18, 2016 at 20:03 | history | asked | b degnan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |