Timeline for How can frequency analysis be applied to modern ciphers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 6, 2019 at 9:49 | history | suggested | Marvin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed "kelaka's answer" link
|
| Oct 5, 2019 at 23:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 6, 2019 at 9:49 | |||||
| Oct 4, 2019 at 22:21 | comment | added | kelalaka | ECB can be safe if you guarantee that there are no repeating blocks. ECB has no CPA security. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 22:05 | comment | added | waitaria | Yes, I meant to say the encryption function. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 22:04 | history | edited | waitaria | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2019 at 22:00 | comment | added | kelalaka |
all cryptographic algorithms in use today are designed to resist frequency analysis. cryptographic algorithms. Block ciphers are prone to it, we prevent it by probabilistic encryption. Even if you use IV in CBC, some stupid person can use it with fixed IV.
|
|
| Oct 4, 2019 at 21:56 | comment | added | waitaria | Thanks @kelalaka, I have clarified my answer, and removed the unfounded claim. Thank you for your example in your answer. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 21:55 | history | edited | waitaria | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Addressed the comment of kelalaka
|
| Oct 4, 2019 at 7:01 | comment | added | kelalaka | This is wrong. al-Kindi's attack still in use on the modern cipher. And you can infer the plaintexts, see my answer and the articles. It was even on news could you provide any [reference] for your claim? | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 23:02 | history | answered | waitaria | CC BY-SA 4.0 |