Yes, but in this context, the proposal is that the ciphertext not tell Eves what the protocol is. Maybe the public key’s hidden somewhere in it, maybe it’s a one-time pad, etc. Added complexity, but not in a way that (AFAICT) subverts the security, and I think ciphergoth was being a bit hasty in applying this reasoning—it warrants a deeper explanation.
If you have a secure encryption algorithm, then whether or not you tell Eve the algorithm isn’t important. Yes, it makes the code-breaking harder for her, but that difficulty is a drop in the bucket, negligible compared to the difficulty of guessing the key.
Proper crypto must be secure whether or not the algorithm is known to attackers. Go ahead and keep the algorithm secret if you really want to, but you needn’t bother.
So it adds no significant difficulty when the plaintext is in a foreign language with few translators you have access to? It was pointless for the US military to use Navajo code-talkers? The shortage of Arabic translators imposes no notable cost on the CIA’s eavesdroppers?
Those things are difficult, sure, and I never said otherwise. But I’m not sure you appreciate just how staggeringly hard it is to break modern crypto. Navajo code-talkers are using a human language, with patterns that can be figured out by a properly determined adversary. There are quite a lot of people who can translate Arabic. Those are nowhere near the difficulty of, say, eavesdropping on a message encrypted with AES-128 when you don’t know the key. Or finding a collision with a given SHA-256 hash. Those things are hard.
Generally, when a security system is broken, it’s not because of the “core” algorithm (RSA/AES etc) being broken, it’s because of other flaws in the system. If you’re keeping the system secret, you’re making things a bit harder for the bad guys (who have to play some guessing game, or get hold of a copy of your program and reverse-engineer it), but you’re also stopping it from getting the examination it needs from good-guy experts (who have better things to do with their lives than try to understand your disassembled source code).
But the key aspects of the code have been reviewed—it’s just that it’s no longer in a format that can algorithmically be passed to a breaker, and requires intelligent thought to get it to that stage, which would seem to put a bottleneck on attacks.
It’s been reviewed by you. Unless you’re a three-letter agency, that’s extremely unlikely to be thorough enough to say with any confidence that it’s secure.
Hm, actually, it depends on what you’re trying to be secure against. If, say, you’re running a website with a standard installation of something, it can be worth changing it a little bit so that automated scanning tools won’t be able to exploit flaws in it.. There won’t be huge benefit against people deliberately targetting you, though.
Yes, but in this context, the proposal is that the ciphertext not tell Eves what the protocol is. Maybe the public key’s hidden somewhere in it, maybe it’s a one-time pad, etc. Added complexity, but not in a way that (AFAICT) subverts the security, and I think ciphergoth was being a bit hasty in applying this reasoning—it warrants a deeper explanation.
If you have a secure encryption algorithm, then whether or not you tell Eve the algorithm isn’t important. Yes, it makes the code-breaking harder for her, but that difficulty is a drop in the bucket, negligible compared to the difficulty of guessing the key.
Proper crypto must be secure whether or not the algorithm is known to attackers. Go ahead and keep the algorithm secret if you really want to, but you needn’t bother.
So it adds no significant difficulty when the plaintext is in a foreign language with few translators you have access to? It was pointless for the US military to use Navajo code-talkers? The shortage of Arabic translators imposes no notable cost on the CIA’s eavesdroppers?
Those things are difficult, sure, and I never said otherwise. But I’m not sure you appreciate just how staggeringly hard it is to break modern crypto. Navajo code-talkers are using a human language, with patterns that can be figured out by a properly determined adversary. There are quite a lot of people who can translate Arabic. Those are nowhere near the difficulty of, say, eavesdropping on a message encrypted with AES-128 when you don’t know the key. Or finding a collision with a given SHA-256 hash. Those things are hard.
Generally, when a security system is broken, it’s not because of the “core” algorithm (RSA/AES etc) being broken, it’s because of other flaws in the system. If you’re keeping the system secret, you’re making things a bit harder for the bad guys (who have to play some guessing game, or get hold of a copy of your program and reverse-engineer it), but you’re also stopping it from getting the examination it needs from good-guy experts (who have better things to do with their lives than try to understand your disassembled source code).
But the key aspects of the code have been reviewed—it’s just that it’s no longer in a format that can algorithmically be passed to a breaker, and requires intelligent thought to get it to that stage, which would seem to put a bottleneck on attacks.
It’s been reviewed by you. Unless you’re a three-letter agency, that’s extremely unlikely to be thorough enough to say with any confidence that it’s secure.
Hm, actually, it depends on what you’re trying to be secure against. If, say, you’re running a website with a standard installation of something, it can be worth changing it a little bit so that automated scanning tools won’t be able to exploit flaws in it.. There won’t be huge benefit against people deliberately targetting you, though.