Is there any security advantage to using a pre-determined IV in CBC mode over a null IV? I'm implementing a license key system similar to this article on CodeProject, but I'm confused by the authors use of a pre-determined IV embedded in the client code alongside the key. Presumably a properly randomized IV wasn't used because the resulting license key would be too long, but wouldn't a null IV be just as (in)secure?

  • $\begingroup$ You are right: There is nothing special about the zero IV (assuming AES is secure); it is just as bad as any other fixed IV. $\endgroup$
    – yyyyyyy
    Jul 15, 2015 at 5:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that symmetric crypto means that key generators are possible. Using asymmetric keys only cracks but not key generators are possible, but they produce longer product keys. $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2015 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ In my case the target is an embedded system, so the symmetric key will be fairly secure in the inaccessible firmware. $\endgroup$
    – Neil
    Jul 15, 2015 at 13:54

1 Answer 1


There's no practical difference between zero IV and any other constant IV here.

With some older ciphers that have a small enough keyspace (or weaknesses that allow reducing it) you could have a rainbow table for the encryption of the zero vector which might make zero IV a weaker choice in some cases, but that would be impossible for AES with its 128-256 bit keys.

Note that when a key is only used to encrypt a single plaintext, a constant IV is secure.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.