Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with perfect-secrecy
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 16459
Confidentiality in a very strong sense. Ciphers reaching perfect-secrecy can't be broken to disclose informations over the plaintext from the ciphertext, even with unlimited computing power. The most known example cipher reaching perfect screcy is the one-time-pad.
16
votes
Accepted
Why is PerfectForwardSecrecy considered OK, when it has same defects as salt-less password h...
Salt-less password hashing is only a problem since the amount of passwords actually used in practice is comparably small and also not evenly distributed. Thus it is both in terms of time and memory po …
- 1,613