Timeline for Security of tokenization of plain text conversations - cryptanalysis
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:29 | history | edited | SEJPM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
HTTPS'ed links
|
| Jul 2, 2013 at 17:38 | vote | accept | DeepSpace101 | ||
| Apr 23, 2013 at 10:48 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | The position of the company has been clarified: these images are from a demo, not the real thing. They claim not to implement 1:1 mapping or ECB mode in any customer deployment. I maintain my previous comment as worded. | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 4:30 | history | edited | DeepSpace101 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified reference
|
| Mar 13, 2013 at 22:38 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/311969647153016833 | ||
| Mar 13, 2013 at 9:17 | comment | added | dchest | See also crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/3645/… | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 8:00 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | If the observation that "new" is encoded identically in two different messages applies to the real system (rather than a marketing video only), this is enough to tell the real system is pure snake oil. Further, a company that let its marketing video have this kind of clear defect should be suspect. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 7:18 | history | migrated | from security.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 7, 2013 at 20:41 | answer | added | LSerni | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:56 | answer | added | Tom Leek | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:51 | comment | added | DeepSpace101 | Should this be moved to crypto SO instead of security SO? If yes, would the mods please assist? | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | Steve | Regarding #3: I don't think thats actually converted to chinese insomuch as the encrypted data, when converted to a string, falls within the Chinese character set. It's a byproduct of the process. | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:30 | history | asked | DeepSpace101 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |