« first day (2863 days earlier)      last day (1829 days later) » 

12:28 AM
1
Q: What are the implications of XORing ciphertext with plaintext?

tjt263I was intrigued by this question: Does adding complexity mean a more secure cipher? And it led me to wonder: What are the implications (if any) of XORing a ciphertext with the original plaintext message? So: $$C=(E_k(m)\oplus m)$$ My first impression was: "That sounds like a bad idea.", but is ...

 
 
2 hours later…
2:13 AM
@bdegnan I'm not a believer of that hypothetical. I think even if it did cause some more people to favor it, there still will be more people that only took in the gossip and headlines. Between the telephone game and how difficult it is to make a correction go as viral as the original story, I think someone would be stupid to try to use something like that as a propaganda technique to promote Simon.
If anything it will mean fewer people use it.
I think. I'm no expert in that kind of thing. Neither are the mathematicians. Why would you think they'd be directing psyops?
 
2:33 AM
@bdegnan Serious question: Can you tell us if the hardware you designed supported using an arbitrary number of rounds?
One idea I saw floating on the web who knows where was that if some amazing new form of cryptanalysis made AES insecure (or nearly insecure), then we could adapt to it by defining a successor to AES, where the only change might be adding extra rounds. This would allow an easier upgrade path because we wouldn't need to replace (some fraction of) existing hardware.
 
3:02 AM
(Not that it's a good idea now. There is probably a cost to allow a variable number of rounds over using a fix number of fully unrolled rounds. AES getting that badly broken is beyond unlikely, but I think the comment was made when AES was much younger and we weren't certain that the number of rounds chosen would be future proof.)
 
 
3 hours later…
5:49 AM
@bdegnan Have you reviewed your NDA recently :-) ?
 
 
9 hours later…
2:40 PM
@fgrieu Can't, it's secret.
 
@SqueamishOssifrage I assumed that his talking points about the SIMON development were direct quotes from his NDA, were they not?
 
@Maeher Are you saying @bdegnan is an NSA plant, substantiating the rumors that the cabal suppressed on the meta.crypto.se question about the proliferation of botany on this site?
 
@SqueamishOssifrage Naturally
 
 
4 hours later…
6:19 PM
Is "military grade encryption" still a phrase that the youths laugh at?
 
@FutureSecurity yes.
 
Oh. Good.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:42 PM
I can talk about all of my work with the NSA because I was the unclassified academic. Everything that I know is in my papers, which mostly had to do with SIMON, passively-powered RFID and curve25516 for ECC. They basically have a power problem because it takes so much power to do encryption. SIMON is a replacement for both byte and bit ciphers, so it was a good replacement.
They spent most of their time on homorphic encryption because it solves the power problem as you don't have to decrypt things. I was never privy to any increasing in rounds for AES, etc, but that would go against the idea of decreasing the power.
 

« first day (2863 days earlier)      last day (1829 days later) »