* Marek Marcola wrote:
That means, that padding didn't solve the problem of
known-plaintext-, chosen-plaintext-, chosen-cyphertext- or
adaptive-chosen-plaintext-attacks? What about OAEP padding?
Can I use the public key as secret key and backwards? Then I can
use OAEP for "signing" with the s
Hello,
> > That means, that padding didn't solve the problem of
> > known-plaintext-, chosen-plaintext-, chosen-cyphertext- or
> > adaptive-chosen-plaintext-attacks? What about OAEP padding?
>
> Can I use the public key as secret key and backwards? Then I can
> use OAEP for "signing" with the secr
Hello,
> That means, that padding didn't solve the problem of
> known-plaintext-, chosen-plaintext-, chosen-cyphertext- or
> adaptive-chosen-plaintext-attacks? What about OAEP padding?
This padding solves some problems with signing messages.
When signing, you can not encrypt ANY text which is given
David Schwartz wrote:
transport anyway (ever met a human who can remember a 128 bit secret key
without keeping notes?).
Actually, human beings can trivially remember secrets with the eqivalent of
128-bits or more. For example:
Approximate Bits: Phrase:
140 y doth h3 4sak
Hello,
> > But this padding only adds in front of DigestInfo known block and
>
> > you get something like that:
> > 0x0001.FF00DigestInfo
> > and this is encrypted with private key.
> > As you see, there is no random information in this case.
>
> That means, that padding didn't solve th
> That's the reason secure tokens exist: they do not in any way allow
> 'public' access to the secrets stored. Think of them as 'write once'
> devices; they are secured by off-loading part of the crypto process to
> the token itself: you will only be able to read derived data. Since you
> use a no
* Philippe Stellwag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That means, that padding didn't solve the problem of
> known-plaintext-, chosen-plaintext-, chosen-cyphertext- or
> adaptive-chosen-plaintext-attacks? What about OAEP padding?
Can I use the public key as secret key and backwards? Then I can
use OA
* Marek Marcola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe I do not understand this correctly, but if you want to
> encrypt some data with RSA 1024 bit key then you will get 128
> bytes of output ciphertext. It is not important what padding
> scheme you will use (or even no padding at all) you should
Philippe Stellwag wrote:
I just want to store some authentication data - a username, group and
date - on a "token", which only offers a passive storage (116 byte
EEPROM) without any cryptografic functions, to save a secret (normally
a private key) from outside access. So this authentication dat
Hello,
>I just want to store some authentication data - a username, group and
>date - on a "token", which only offers a passive storage (116 byte
>EEPROM) without any cryptografic functions, to save a secret
>(normally a private key) from outside access. So this authentication
>data must be encrypt
* Marek Marcola wrote:
[...]
Or maybe you can send your data in two smaller RSA encrypted
messages ?
I just want to store some authentication data - a username, group and
date - on a "token", which only offers a passive storage (116 byte
EEPROM) without any cryptografic functions, to sav
Hello,
> > * Philippe Stellwag wrote:
> >> is it possible to change the OpenSSL RSA functions so that I can use
> >> a different - may be a variable - block size. At the moment the block
> >> size on the OpenSSL RSA functions depends on the length of the RSA
> >> key pair and the kind of padding (f
* David Schwartz wrote:
But can I use e.g. a 1024 bit key pair with a block size of 116
byte, that is not depending on the problem shown above, isn't it?!
What is the security reason, why not to do this?
That would seriously weaken the security properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA
> But can I use e.g. a 1024 bit key pair with a block size of 116
> byte, that is not depending on the problem shown above, isn't it?!
> What is the security reason, why not to do this?
That would seriously weaken the security properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA
Read the section on pa
* Marek Marcola wrote:
* Philippe Stellwag wrote:
is it possible to change the OpenSSL RSA functions so that I can use
a different - may be a variable - block size. At the moment the block
size on the OpenSSL RSA functions depends on the length of the RSA
key pair and the kind of padding (follow
Hello,
> is it possible to change the OpenSSL RSA functions so that I can use
> a different - may be a variable - block size. At the moment the block
> size on the OpenSSL RSA functions depends on the length of the RSA
> key pair and the kind of padding (following PKCS#1 v1.5, which means
>
> Hi at all,
>
> is it possible to change the OpenSSL RSA functions so that I can use
> a different - may be a variable - block size. At the moment the block
> size on the OpenSSL RSA functions depends on the length of the RSA
> key pair and the kind of padding (following PKCS#1 v1.5, which means
17 matches
Mail list logo
