Timeline for Would this be considered secure?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2016 at 12:45 | vote | accept | Offtkp | ||
| Oct 26, 2016 at 12:14 | answer | added | tylo | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 9:38 | vote | accept | Offtkp | ||
| Oct 26, 2016 at 12:45 | |||||
| Oct 25, 2016 at 23:13 | answer | added | Steven Alexander | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 22:54 | comment | added | Offtkp | Haven't thought of that, indeed. But there is no such restriction in the algorithm in question, we just assume an algorithm that seems to turn letters into "random" (generated by an algorithm and a key) letters (this doesn't mean that the letter "e" for example can't turn into "e" (itself)). Assuming the cryptanalyst knows the algorithm and the cypher, can he find the plaintext and/or key? | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 22:48 | comment | added | r3mainer | What you're describing sounds very much like the Enigma code. If a letter can never be encrypted as itself, this leaks information about the plaintext. | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 22:14 | comment | added | Offtkp | Oh, I was thinking about hashes when I was writing this question, since they look very different with the small change of a letter. Are there any cryptanalysis methods for public-key encryption functions that use the avalanche effect? | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 22:11 | comment | added | SEJPM | It looks like you have re-discovered the avalanche effect. | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 22:02 | history | asked | Offtkp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |