3 ms·
Basically, yeah, although "insecure" is a bit too broad; unauthenticated encryption is insecure in some contexts, like sending messages to another person. But i
by nemo1618 6y ago
Basically, yeah, although "insecure" is a bit too broad; unauthenticated encryption is insecure in some contexts, like sending messages to another person. But if you're encrypting your own backups, and all you care about is that the NSA can't see what you're storing, then there's no insecurity: encryption alone is sufficient.
By the same token, sometimes authentication alone is sufficient, like if you just want to verify that some person did indeed "authorize" a particular message -- for example, a public forum post with an attached PGP signature.
- eurg 6y agoMalleable backups are not secure when they need to be restored, something that could be necessary if by some chance a server of yours became dead suddenly.
- upofadown 6y agoIf modification of your backups is possible then you should just sign them. Then it doesn't matter if your encryption is malleable or not. Why have just an integrity check when you can have an authenticity check as well?