90,201 reputation
9126248
bio website
location
age 69
visits member for 3 years, 7 months
seen 53 mins ago

I SHALL DEVOUR YOUR HEART AND FEAST ON YOUR SOUL (so don't bug me).


Apr
23
comment This is 2015. Has SHA1 been exploited or cracked yet?
A compelling reasons for switching to SHA-256 for certificates is that some modern browsers (especially Chrome) are beginning to emit warnings when they see SHA-1 used in the signature of a certificate. Regardless of whether SHA-1 is weak or not, using it incurs the risk of scaring users away (especially when users are prospective customers).
Apr
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
22
comment Why don't we reward users who choose strong passwords?
Well, I don't require users to remember a random password. I suggest it, and I reward them if they do. Writing down passwords is not bad idea, as long as they keep the paper in a safe place (their wallet is not a bad place for that). The real benefit from such a system is not that the password is random; it is that the user will have a distinct password on every site, and passwords for one site cannot be inferred from passwords for the same user on another site. As long as the system enlists user cooperation, and does not try to enforce things, it may work.
Apr
22
answered This is 2015. Has SHA1 been exploited or cracked yet?
Apr
22
answered Why don't we reward users who choose strong passwords?
Apr
22
comment Password strength with grouping of characters
@Ian the question is about adding three dots to a 20-character password, not replacing three characters in a 23-char password with dots. We assume the attacker knows all about the extra dots; he still has 20 non-dot characters to guess. The underlying question is whether these known dots induce extra structural weakness due to some postulated weird interaction with the hash function computation; that, is, weakness beyond the fact that the attacker knows 3 of the 23 password characters, and has "only" 20 more to guess.
Apr
22
answered Password strength with grouping of characters
Apr
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
21
answered If TLS 1.2 is considered unbreakable, why do the NSA and other agencies invest in supercomputers?
Apr
21
comment Which is better for server-to-server-communication: IPSec or TLS?
"Layers" are ill-defined. For instance, if you use a TLS-based VPN, then the TLS must be both above layer 4 and below layer 3, a logical impossibility. Trying to map all network activity into the rigid "layer" terminology is bound to be restrictive and spread confusion. As for combining two encryption systems to obtain "maximum security", it is called cascading and is not really recommended (cascading surely increases usage cost, but it "increases" security only insofar as one of the cascaded protocols is broken, and it would be smarter not to use a broken protocol at all).
Apr
21
comment Securing a prediction about a future event
Length does not provide entropy. It merely provides room for entropy. The "80 bits" value is the traditional limit of computational feasibility, though the relentless increase in computational power of computers should warrant, at some time, a new traditional limit (cryptographers being in love with powers of 2, they now often talk about "128 bits" as that absolute limit).
Apr
9
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
6
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
1
awarded  md5
Mar
30
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
25
awarded  Revival
Mar
23
awarded  Guru
Mar
21
awarded  Enlightened
Mar
21
awarded  Nice Answer