3 ms·
> What's wrong with CBC? It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM > Some modern modes of operation combine confidentiality and authenticity in an efficien
by mprime1 4y ago
> What's wrong with CBC?
It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM
> Some modern modes of operation combine confidentiality and authenticity in an efficient way, and are known as authenticated encryption modes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operati...
I’d also add: CBC requires padding and GCM does not. Minor convenience.
- gkbrk 4y agoNostr messages are all signed though. Why would you want two signatures on a message. And if two signatures are better than one, why not 3 signatures?
- mprime1 4y agoDiscussion was about cipher block modes. And GCM does not ‘add’ a signature per se.
- gkbrk 4y agoDiscussion was about cipher block modes in the context of Nostr and NIP-04. You might notice all 3 levels above your comment reference either the Nostr protocol in general, or NIP-04 messages. > And GCM does not ‘add’ a signature per se. Your own comment to which I replied said "It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM". Wouldn't most people consider something "signed" as having a signature?