Earlier quoted context omitted.
They figured out that most people just look for buzzwords and are thus easy to separate from their money when it comes to crypto. Encryption as a service is non-sencical. If the provider has the key, and does the encryption and decryption, then who are you protecting the data from[1]? What magical malicious person are you imagining that would somehow be able to get their hands on the encrypted data without also getti…
It seems like what they do (maybe?) is encrypt the binary/string data but still let you search or join on it by encrypting queries to the same data? So in other words the operations on the data are not encrypted but the data itself is? This might work for whole words but for partial word matches I think you'd have to do a byte-for-byte character swap which exposes it too much to statistical cryptanalysis? And this st…
Are you saying something along the lines of - they split the data in to tokens, deterministically (no iv) encrypt each token, and then do equality comparisons on the encrypted tokens?
Maybe, and it would explain why they say you can chose a cipher and then list a bunch of standard symmetric ciphers. However such schemes usually leak too much in practise (even at the granuality of whole words).
More importantly, it really doesn't matter. They have both the key and the encrypted data. If someone hacks their system, the best encryption in the world won't help if the attacker steals both.
