• Breaking News

    Wednesday, September 5, 2018

    Home Unlabelled Cryptography The Controversial Speck Encryption Code Will Indeed Be Dropped From The Linux Kernel

    Cryptography The Controversial Speck Encryption Code Will Indeed Be Dropped From The Linux Kernel

    September 05, 2018

    Cryptography The Controversial Speck Encryption Code Will Indeed Be Dropped From The Linux Kernel

    The Controversial Speck Encryption Code Will Indeed Be Dropped From The Linux Kernel

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 09:19 AM PDT

    Why was Rijndael chosen over Twofish?

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 01:10 AM PDT

    On paper, Twofish is more secure than Rijndael, as the lower round versions of Rijndael are broken, and Twofish has a fixed set of 16 rounds, 2 more than what is formally specified for Rijndael 256b keys.

    Before one claims efficiency, both are comparatively the same speed on modern hardware and hardware acceleration would also be comparable.

    Anyone who is familiar with the competition please explain in depth as to why Twofish was not chosen 😀

    submitted by /u/Crinchy
    [link] [comments]

    looking for resources on protocols/cryptosystems

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 08:41 PM PDT

    so i am looking to learn more about cryptography. in particular -- and borrowing terminology from this recent post -- i think i want to learn more about protocols & cryptosystems, rather than encryption algorithms themselves (--right now, at least--) (so, items >3 in that list).

    for example: instead of learning about SHA down to the nuts and bolts, learning about the applications of hashing: "hashing allows them not to store your pwd in plaintext, just the hash. when you log in they just compare your hashed pwd with what they have there!". similarly... in what ways are communications over the web vulnerable, and what measures are there to counter this? e.g. "what is HTTPS?", "whatsapp tells me that my conversations are 'encrypted end to end' or something. what does this even mean?"... or...

    Smart cards have been advertised as suitable for personal identification tasks, because they are engineered to be tamper resistant.

    ok, but what does this mean in practice? how were they engineered to be tamper resistant?

    The chip usually implements some cryptographic algorithm.

    great, but how do they make use of this cryptographic algorithm?

    as a final example (hehe xD i know you've guys have had enough with the """crypto""" bros): "where does the crypto in cryptocurrency comes from?" (partial answer: miners hash something until the resulting hash has a lot of leading zeros -- ok but so what?)

    see the kinds of questions i have? i'm not necessarily looking for answers to these questions specifically, rather, to have a general feeling for the essential ideas behind 'cryptographic protocols' -- what seems to be their name...

    so, if you guys care to recommend me some texts or readings, i'd be thankful. btw, fwiw i'm a cs student.

    submitted by /u/dsofsodio
    [link] [comments]

    Consensus protocols that provide Byzantine Fault Tolerance but no Total order of events?

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 02:22 PM PDT

    Hi, first of all, sorry for asking this on /r/crypto, but is the only place where I think my question can be really answered (the blockchain hype doesn't help with me finding scientific answers on consensus protocols).

    ​

    In the literature the Blockchain consensus protocol provides these properties:

    - (Reasonably) resistant against byzantine failures.

    - Provides a total order of all events.

    ​

    But for example; for timestamping of documents (e.g. proof that you had a document in possession at a certain time) I don't need a total order of events. I only need a very rough estimation of when the proof was broadcasted in the consensus network. So my question is; do consensus protocols exist of where only resistance against byzantine failures exist, or am I just plain missing something important here for timestamping?

    submitted by /u/ilovealaska
    [link] [comments]

    Distinguishing cryptographic properties: hiding and collision resistance

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 03:43 AM PDT

    I saw from A question on stackoverflow the following definitions, which clarifies somewhat:

    Collision-resistance:

    Given: x and h(x)

    Hard to find: y that is distinct from x and such that h(y)=h(x).

    Hiding:

    Given: h(r|x)

    Secret: x and a highly-unlikely-and-randomly-chosen r

    Hard to find: y such that h(y)=h(r|x).

    This is different from collision-resistance in that it doesn't matter whether or not y=r|x.

    My question:

    Does this mean that any hash function h(x) is non-hiding if there is no secret r, that is, the hash is h(x), not h(r|x)?

    Example:

    Say I make a simple hash function h(x) = g^x mod(n), where g is the generator for the group. The hash should be Collision resistant with p(x_1 != x_2, h(x_1) = h(x_2)) = 1/(2^(n/2)), but I would think it is hiding as well?

    submitted by /u/Estoked
    [link] [comments]

    Old man doesn't understand the internet.

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 12:10 PM PDT

    Public key keyserver directory

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 09:32 AM PDT

    Which keyserver directory is the one that's most commonly used?

    submitted by /u/AyanAC_
    [link] [comments]

    Are there older symmetrical or assymmetrical ciphers which are still considered secure?

    Posted: 04 Sep 2018 04:48 AM PDT

    Hi, i look for cryptographic algorithms (hashes, symmetric and assymmetric) which are still considered secure, but are not used, due to performance issues (OTP asside).

    I think serpent and twofish are considered secure. Are there any hashing algorithms or assymmetric ones, which are considered secure but are performance heavy?

    submitted by /u/linuxlover81
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment