Timeline for Security of key schedule that only XORs a key with constants
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2018 at 2:39 | comment | added | forest | Doesn't TEA use this technique for its key schedule? | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 17:45 | answer | added | hardyrama | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 15, 2017 at 18:33 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 18:25 | comment | added | poncho | In your case, they're not constants. My statement really is "there isn't much a key schedule can do that would always harm security"; the caveat of "unless the key schedule does something does something silly" was to forestall objections that there are things a horrid key schedule could do, not that you schedule does that... | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 18:10 | comment | added | Melab | @poncho I fixed it. How are they set to constants? | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 17:36 | answer | added | crypt | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 14:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 17, 2017 at 0:41 | |||||
| Oct 16, 2017 at 14:04 | comment | added | tylo | A key schedule has no security definition. Also, how is this used in a cipher, what are the definitions, etc.? From the little information there, I would say this is vulnerable to linear and differential cryptanalysis at least. | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 4:23 | history | edited | Henno Brandsma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Oct 16, 2017 at 2:07 | history | edited | Melab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 16, 2017 at 2:01 | comment | added | poncho | In any case, unless the key schedule does something exceedingly silly (e.g. set all round keys to constant values), it's impossible to talk about the security of a key schedule without specifying what cipher it is a part of. The above key schedule might cause the cipher to be quite weak; or it might be exactly the sort of thing the cipher needs to be secure. | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 1:53 | comment | added | poncho | Perhaps for the last line, you meant $RK_r = MK \oplus RC_r$? | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 1:25 | comment | added | fkraiem | This makes no sense. | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 1:05 | comment | added | Ella Rose | "security" in regards to what? You might be interested in the LED cipher | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 0:58 | history | asked | Melab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |