28

If you can't get access to the key for at least some sample uses, there's no way to be sure. For example, it's impossible to distinguish AES-128 from AES-256 if you don't have access to the key. That's true of any encryption method: without knowing the key, you can't distinguish the ciphertext from random data of the same length. A professional auditor ...


10

Unless the file has a plaintext header which indicates that it has been encrypted, there is no way to distinguish ciphertext from uniform random data. You can heuristically guess that a file is encrypted if it has absolutely no structure and appears completely random, but you cannot definitively prove it. Any cipher whose output could be distinguished from ...


7

In addition to what the other answers have stated, "proper" encryption using AES-256 (block mode choice aside) can still allow backdoors, such as by maliciously choosing IVs/nonces. Phil Rogaway and others discuss this in more detail in their paper "Security of Symmetric Encryption against Mass Surveillance" (abstract available here).


4

This question is very easy to answer: The implementation isn't correct and you absolutely should not use it. Any other attitude towards this black box is hopelessly attackable. Your stance should be: "I must be able to see the source, audit the source, and build the source myself into a binary". Anything short of that is irresponsible on your part. Do not ...


3

That depends on the encryption. But for all simple monoalphabetic substitutions the answer is yes. And to don't need a neutral net, but the most simple classifier works. You train it on the letters of the cipher-texts, with the cleartext-letters being the classes. To apply the decryption to an unknown text, just let it classify each letter of the cipher ...


3

Suppose you have two message signature pairs and following values are then public i.e. known to you - The public keys: $Q_1 (= x_1G)$, $Q_2 (= x_2G)$ The messages and their hashes: $m_1$, $m_2$, $H(m_1)$, $H(m_2)$ The signatures: $(r_1, s_1)$, ($r_2, s_2$) The following are unknown - The private keys: $x_1$, $x_2$ The nonce: $k$ The following relations ...


3

If you're wondering about the iPhone's encryption specifically, then this work may have already been done for you. Many Apple/iPhone products have passed formal FIPS 140-2 certification, which does extensive tests on the sorts of things that you're concerned about. If you want to see details about which products have been certified for which algorithms/key ...


1

Many answers have pointed out that what you seek to do is not possible. Proving that something is encrypted with key X is not possible without having key X and a signature for what was encrypted. If it were possible, then the encryption algorithm would be a faulty one. AES does not fit that bill. However, if you are really in a bind, where management has ...


1

Exceptions to Kerckhoffs's second principle do exist Background Kerckhoffs addressed the problem of how to use cryptography in military telegraphy. This was to be a critical issue during World War I (see the German ADFGX and ADFGVX ciphers). In 1881, Kerckhoffs became professor of German at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales and at the Ecole ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible