4 ms·
Here is the thing, the cryptography is really not the weak part of a communication system. You really don't gain anything by using a one-time pad over something
by _fizz_buzz_ 11y ago
Here is the thing, the cryptography is really not the weak part of a communication system. You really don't gain anything by using a one-time pad over something like AES-256 in any practical sense. You're only making the part of your system stronger that is already more than strong enough (From a thermodynamics point of view you couldn't even brute force AES-256 if you had a supernova as an energy source [1]). Difficult parts of a secure communication system are authentication, key-exchange, etc.
Example how to compromise your system: I send your friend a message with some random data and pretend to be you. Now he doesn't know what's going on and you two are out of sync and cannot securely re-sync your keys without meeting up again.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_...
- ryacko 11y agoYou can bruteforce AES-256 if you were using a quantum computer. Or if there's a new advance in algebraic cryptanalysis.
- _fizz_buzz_ 11y ago> You can bruteforce AES-256 if you were using a quantum computer. Not true. AES does not suffer from the same weaknesses as many public key schemes. A quantum computer could speed up an attack on AES, but does not fundamentally break it. > Or if there's a new advance in algebraic cryptanalysis. Sure. But my point was that there are much weaker points than the encryption in a communication system.