11–20 of 93 posts
>A plugin in John the ripper software to allow everyone to "practically brute force military grade AES-1024" will be released at the time of the presentation.
My understanding was that even 128-bit security is safe from brute forcing at the present. Am I missing something?
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
>However, it turned out after the analysis that all these modes offer only a security level of 128-bit. >A plugin in John the ripper software to allow everyone to "practically brute force military grade AES-1024" will be released at the time of the presentation. My understanding was that even 128-bit security is safe from brute forcing at the present. Am I missing something?
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
But military-grade is just a buzzword. Unlike something like MIL-SPEC there is no body that determines what is military grade. And even MIL-SPEC is not very specific, most of its standards have many components that don't apply unless the vendor specifically certifies for it.
But yeah most vendors that use such terminology demonstrate a very poor understanding of the technical principles and use their marketing buzzwords to make up for it.
Isn't key derivation function completely separate from aes implementation. I mean you could have used the same broken key derivation with some other aes implementation. Also aes-1024 sounds like some proprietary thingy, not something people should probably trust anyway...
The complaint is that the user supplied password is easier to guess than it could be. A fast hash is used and not very many times. So you might have to, say, use 5 words rather than, say, 3 words in your diceware generated passphrase if you want to be secure against brute force attacks. This ends up being a common usability issue whenever a user is asked to provide a passphrase for some sort of symmetrical encryption…
a dictionary word with common letters substituted with a number, case-sensitive, and one or two punctuation.. that is "not protected anything" ? .. almost any two dictionary words put together, not even case sensitive also "not protected anything" ? the out-of-breath security analysis is bothersome and lead us to mandatory ten characters of garble and other extreme anti-user patterns.. I am looking at a stack of forty accounts with passwords as an ordinary library user.. not convinced of this expert analysis today
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…
The presenter shows a slide with an online post saying: “cryptography marketed as military grade is often to crypto what military music is to music”
The use in the title is almost certainly self aware and tongue in cheek.
I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…