Timeline for Why not use symmetric encryption?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2014 at 10:06 | comment | added | Peter | @Lawtonfogle According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_strength a 72 bit password takes some 124 years to crack, so 82,72 bits seems safe enough for some time to come. And I don’t think breaking the encryption in my emails is at the top of the NSA’s list of priorities. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 23:16 | answer | added | Superbest | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 23:10 | comment | added | Superbest | @PiTheNumber It's a bit ironic to tell someone to Google material relating to online privacy concerns, don't you think? | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 16:31 | comment | added | Lawtonfogle | @Peter So you would trust your encryption to 82 bits? Also note, that even while computers get faster, it doesn't get easier to exchange this information with someone else. Since the ability to break the encryption scales faster than the ability to increase encryption strength, this method will only get weaker. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 14:42 | comment | added | Peter | @Lawtonfogle Determined by dice fk5r qzf6 0kwp k8ym and over 82 bits of entropy. Easy to read over the phone. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 14:28 | comment | added | Lawtonfogle | So ~800 characters over the phone? Still very unpleasant. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 12:44 | comment | added | PiTheNumber | @Peter Sorry to wake you up, but we all are specifically targeted for surveillance. Google "Full Take". Today's surveillance targets everybody, everywhere at anytime. But you are right you can not protect yourself from those kind of attacker. I was not talking about "them". GSM is broken, DECT is broken, land lines are not encrypted, so why would you think your phone call is secure? Everybody can listen to your calls if he likes to. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 11:32 | answer | added | Nabodix | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 10:08 | comment | added | Peter | @PiTheNumber Most of us are not specifically targeted for surveillance. The purpose of encrypting email is usually so that it can’t be snooped while in transit and that the contents of our messages aren’t stored by Google, etc. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 9:54 | comment | added | Peter | @Lawtonfogle It is possible to have 80+ bits of entropy using 16 single case alphanumeric passphrase characters. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 9:50 | comment | added | Peter | @BobBrown I am talking about end-to-end encryption. The system I use is this: prgomez.com/ursa | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 9:32 | answer | added | pjc50 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 8:54 | comment | added | Mirco | @PiTheNumber especially when it was a gift from Eve :) | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 8:06 | comment | added | PiTheNumber | Do not read the secret key over the phone. Your phone is most likely not secure. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 6:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/545470798958694400 | ||
| Dec 18, 2014 at 0:46 | answer | added | JesseM | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | Andrew Savinykh | Both symmetric and asymmetric encryption have their use cases. Moreover, asymmetric encryption in most practical senses rely on symmetric encryption, because encrypting asymmetrically anything bigger than a symmetric encryption key is too slow. So yes, when symmetric encryption is appropriate, by all means use it. Otherwise there is asymmetric encryption option when you need it. (There are a few examples why one might want it in the answers) | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:05 | history | edited | Rory Alsop♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 167 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 19:38 | answer | added | Jason | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 19:37 | answer | added | Ryan Kennedy | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:30 | comment | added | Lawtonfogle | Isn't the asymmetric encryption mainly used to transmit a temp key for symmetric encryption? Also, do you think you can accurately read/write 4,000 1's and 0's? | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:23 | answer | added | DTK | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 14:16 | answer | added | apsillers | timeline score: 26 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 12:39 | comment | added | Bob Brown | Do not confuse protecting stuff in transit with end-to-end encryption. TLS/HTTPS protects stuff in transit, but messages are stored en claire on mail provider's servers. The only encryption that's (mostly) safe from snooping is that which is applied before a message leaves the sender's machine and reversed only on the recipient's machine. The only safe crypto key is one you have generated yourself. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 12:38 | answer | added | Tokk | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 11:51 | answer | added | Thomas Pornin | timeline score: 33 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 11:33 | history | asked | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |