Timeline for How secure is using a pad (using xor) on a encrypted data, for the purpose of obfuscating/hiding the underlying encryption?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:59 | vote | accept | Thomas F. | ||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:44 | answer | added | Joshua | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:24 | vote | accept | Thomas F. | ||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:59 | |||||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:24 | vote | accept | Thomas F. | ||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 17:24 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2014 at 19:03 | answer | added | otus | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 18:07 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/489833744636080128 | ||
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:50 | history | edited | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added some further clarification after reading two referenced crypto.stack questions. Also replaced the word "cipher" with "key" because that's more accurate. |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:44 | comment | added | Thomas F. | @e-sushi I read through those two posts, and am adding some more clarification. They were an interesting read as well, ty! | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:32 | history | edited | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Removed occurrences of "one time pad" and made it just "pad", as pointed out this isn't a one time pad. |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:23 | comment | added | Thomas F. | @fgrieu Added some clarification. I know it invalidates it as a "one time" pad, though I don't really know what else to call this process. I guess just a pad? Thanks. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:22 | history | edited | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 106 characters in body |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:19 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | If in “The key is repeatedly used” that “key” is the same as “pad cipher”, then that “repeatedly” is the exact opposite of “one time” in the title's “one time pad”. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:13 | comment | added | Thomas F. | @e-sushi Thanks for the references, I'll have a look at those as well! | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:10 | comment | added | Mike Edward Moras | As they’re somewhat related – so, maybe the answers to this question and/or this question can provide some additional insights… | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:06 | comment | added | Thomas F. | @e-sushi That's true, though one aspect of what I was wondering is if the fact that the only thing it's repeatedly used on is binary (AES encrypted) output, does that pose as much risk? Every time I hear it mentioned it's always under the context of no previous encryption used, but rather just on some plain text file. Also thanks for the comment! And np on the time. Edit: It's not that I doubt the security of AES, but rather a curiosity question about the use of xor with a repeated key/cipher in this context as opposed to what it's usually brought up in. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:02 | comment | added | Mike Edward Moras | Currently, I’m asking myself why you think AES256 in itself would not provide enough security in itself. Ignoring that, and not having enough time on my side to write up a complete answer, I’ll just drop that the first thing that immediately rings my alarm bell is: “The key is repeatedly used.” (Besides that, there are a few other potential issues, but I’m sure someone will mention them in his/her answer.) | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 16:53 | history | edited | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fixed wording. |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 16:45 | history | edited | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fixed a grammar thing that was driving me nuts. |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 16:12 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 17, 2014 at 16:28 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2014 at 16:07 | history | asked | Thomas F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |