3 ms·
I think the most ingenious implication of what you're describing is that as a side effect, it is therefore guaranteed that no two distinct message will have the
by therein 9y ago
I think the most ingenious implication of what you're describing is that as a side effect, it is therefore guaranteed that no two distinct message will have the same nonce.
- StavrosK 9y agoI think that's the point, not a side effect, though. It only seems to prevent nonce reuse, not collisions for small nonce lengths, but I guess that's what they set out to fix, as it's the more common problem. I guess the reasoning went something like: "How do we prevent reusing the same nonce for two different messages? XOR a hash of the message with the nonce" (I'm not sure this is actually how it works, I haven't looked). Obvious in retrospect, like all great ideas.