meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 9 months |
| seen | May 12 at 12:04 | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
|
May 12 |
comment |
Disk Erasing Security - Odd Number of Writes Also even in the 1980's you never needed all 35 passes. 35 passes covers all types of drives. Given that any given hard drive uses a single physical encoding you only needed to apply the passes applicable to that encoding. |
|
May 9 |
comment |
Two-way secure communication using two pairs of public/private keys? As it so happens both systems fall to that problem. Because SSL is a key exchange protocol the session key is only protected by the master key. This means that if the master key is compromised all sessions can be read. The problems with unstudied protocols can be incredibly subtle and not related to the protocol at all. Look at side channel attacks. Formal model checking can help you find structural vulnerabilities. Look at Casper or BAN logic, or if you're feeling really ambitious go for Bigraphs. |
|
May 9 |
comment |
Two-way secure communication using two pairs of public/private keys? I can't see an obvious attack, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. The main reason people don't do this is public key cryptography is horribly slow. However it definitely won't be as secure as SSL, because SSL has been studied intensively and has fixed implementations that have been rigorously bug-checked. There are hundreds of subtle ways to leak information, timing attacks, power attacks (both active and passive), etc. |
|
May 8 |
comment |
Two-way secure communication using two pairs of public/private keys? SSL uses public key cryptography to exchange a secret session key and uses random numbers from both sides to prevent a replay attack. All further communication is encrypted with the session key. The communications under the session key are encrypted with a block cipher in some useful mode (usually GCM or CBC). This means that the decryption of each message depends on the previous message (or in counter mode the number of previous messages). Thus replay attacks give gibberish and dictionary attacks lack the proper key. |
|
May 8 |
revised |
Two-way secure communication using two pairs of public/private keys? Added more attacks |
|
May 8 |
answered | Two-way secure communication using two pairs of public/private keys? |
|
Mar 22 |
answered | OAuth in open-source plugin |
|
Aug 16 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Aug 13 |
comment |
How secure is the SRP that Blizzard uses to protect passwords? @curiousguy I actually meant a password hash, but yes a slow hash usually suffices, preferably one that uses a lot of memory too. |
|
Aug 10 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Aug 10 |
revised |
PRNG: Does combining insecure algos help? Added more info. |
|
Aug 10 |
answered | PRNG: Does combining insecure algos help? |
|
Aug 10 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Aug 10 |
answered | How secure is the SRP that Blizzard uses to protect passwords? |
