3 ms·

Crypto 101 – Introductory course on cryptography (2017)

236 points by pona-a 1y ago

teleforce 1y ago
Thanks for the link. You can download this entire Handbook of Applied Cryptography for free [1]. Recently the authors also provided online course and video namely: - Cryptography 101: Building Blocks (fundamental cryptographic primitives) [2] - Cryptography 101: Real-World Deployments (PKI, TLS, Bluetooth, AWS, Signal) [3] Other courses and video includes: - The Mathematics of Lattice-Based Cryptography (introductory course) - Kyber and Dilithium (standardized lattice-based cryptosystems) - Hash-based signature schemes (LMS, XMSS, SPHINCS+) - Error-Correcting Codes (linear, Hamming, Golay, cyclic, BCH, Reed-Solomon codes [1] Handbook of Applied Cryptography: https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/ https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/ [2] Crypto 101: Building Blocks: https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-building-blocks/ https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-building-blocks/ [3] Crypto 101: Real-World Deployments: https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-deployments/ https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-deployments/
xavdid 1y ago
I don't remember if it links to it, but this pairs well with https://cryptopals.com/ https://cryptopals.com/, which are practical examples of many of these theories.
anorphirith 1y ago
this is the type of crypto i like
- HJD2BHVaxDA 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - titanomachian 1y ago
    You wouldn't happen to be a cryptobro yourself, would you?
  - teiferer 1y ago
    Blockchains/cryptocurrencies are actually quite simple, from a cryptographic POV.
    - beeflet 1y ago
      I disagree. While it's true that early cryptocurrencies were based on well established cryptography, a lot of the modern (post 2017-ish) cryptocurrency tech involves cutting-edge cryptography. Especially with respect to post-quantum setups, zero-knowlege proofs, and new devices like adaptor signatures. One reason for this is that cryptocurrencies are highly bandwidth-limited. Cryptography developed for other applications (such as voting systems, etc.) needs to be specialized to meet the size and computational restraints inherent to cryptocurrency design. Efficiency is everything.
physix 1y ago
This looks to be really well written. After 25 odd pages, I'm saying to myself, can't wait to read the whole book.
mac-monet 1y ago
About to finish reading "Real World Cryptograhy" by David Wong, would highly recommend for anyone curious about this subject.
baxtr 1y ago
>Fortunately, we donʼt have an algorithm that can factor such large numbers in reasonable time. Unfortunately, we also havenʼt proven it doesnʼt exist. Even more unfortunate is that there is a theoretical algorithm, called Shorʼs algorithm, that would be able to factor such a number in reasonable time on a quantum computer. Right now, quantum computers are far from practical, but it does appear that if someone in the future manages to build one thatʼs sufficiently large, RSA becomes ineffective. Can anyone comment on how close we are to having Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer? Is feasible like the moon landing was in 1962 when Kennedy announced that "We choose to go to the Moon" (hard, but possible with a lot of money). Or is it still something that we have no clue how to get to?
- ctz 1y ago
  https://pqcrypto2025.iis.sinica.edu.tw/slides/Invited3.pdf https://pqcrypto2025.iis.sinica.edu.tw/slides/Invited3.pdf edit: video if you prefer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJxENYdsB6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJxENYdsB6c
  - baxtr 1y ago
    So it’s not like the moon landing since the horizon is much longer than a decade.
z3phyr 1y ago
I think cryptanalysis as a discipline is not massively funded. All of the cryptography is only as strong as the collective failure of all human intelligence so far to break it. Most people consider cryptography as a "solved" problem, but I don't think it is. I am sure if enough cryptologists try algorithmic methods and are well compensated for it, they will likely find algorithmic weaknesses (and invent new kinds of mathematics) that can bring down complexity of solving such schemes, even before we have real and functional Shor machines.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > I think cryptanalysis as a discipline is not massively funded. Really? That would be a change.
  - z3phyr 1y ago
    I guess massively is the relative word. But I will stand by the claim that we can discover/invent new mathematical methods that can aid in cryptanalysis, if not directly by cryptographers, then by some adjacent field.
pythops 1y ago
Looks great, thanks for sharing
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

236 points by pona-a 1y ago

Thanks for the link. You can download this entire Handbook of Applied Cryptography for free [1]. Recently the authors also provided online course and video namely: - Cryptography 101: Building Blocks (fundamental cryptographic primitives) [2] - Cryptography 101: Real-World Deployments (PKI, TLS, Bluetooth, AWS, Signal) [3] Other courses and video includes: - The Mathematics of Lattice-Based Cryptography (introductory course) - Kyber and Dilithium (standardized lattice-based cryptosystems) - Hash-based signature schemes (LMS, XMSS, SPHINCS+) - Error-Correcting Codes (linear, Hamming, Golay, cyclic, BCH, Reed-Solomon codes [1] Handbook of Applied Cryptography: https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/ https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/ [2] Crypto 101: Building Blocks: https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-building-blocks/ https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-building-blocks/ [3] Crypto 101: Real-World Deployments: https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-deployments/ https://cryptography101.ca/crypto101-deployments/

xavdid 1y ago

I don't remember if it links to it, but this pairs well with https://cryptopals.com/ https://cryptopals.com/, which are practical examples of many of these theories.

anorphirith 1y ago

this is the type of crypto i like

HJD2BHVaxDA 1y ago
[flagged]
- titanomachian 1y ago
  You wouldn't happen to be a cryptobro yourself, would you?
- teiferer 1y ago
  Blockchains/cryptocurrencies are actually quite simple, from a cryptographic POV.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    I disagree. While it's true that early cryptocurrencies were based on well established cryptography, a lot of the modern (post 2017-ish) cryptocurrency tech involves cutting-edge cryptography. Especially with respect to post-quantum setups, zero-knowlege proofs, and new devices like adaptor signatures. One reason for this is that cryptocurrencies are highly bandwidth-limited. Cryptography developed for other applications (such as voting systems, etc.) needs to be specialized to meet the size and computational restraints inherent to cryptocurrency design. Efficiency is everything.

physix 1y ago

This looks to be really well written. After 25 odd pages, I'm saying to myself, can't wait to read the whole book.

mac-monet 1y ago

About to finish reading "Real World Cryptograhy" by David Wong, would highly recommend for anyone curious about this subject.

baxtr 1y ago

>Fortunately, we donʼt have an algorithm that can factor such large numbers in reasonable time. Unfortunately, we also havenʼt proven it doesnʼt exist. Even more unfortunate is that there is a theoretical algorithm, called Shorʼs algorithm, that would be able to factor such a number in reasonable time on a quantum computer. Right now, quantum computers are far from practical, but it does appear that if someone in the future manages to build one thatʼs sufficiently large, RSA becomes ineffective. Can anyone comment on how close we are to having Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer? Is feasible like the moon landing was in 1962 when Kennedy announced that "We choose to go to the Moon" (hard, but possible with a lot of money). Or is it still something that we have no clue how to get to?

ctz 1y ago
https://pqcrypto2025.iis.sinica.edu.tw/slides/Invited3.pdf https://pqcrypto2025.iis.sinica.edu.tw/slides/Invited3.pdf edit: video if you prefer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJxENYdsB6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJxENYdsB6c
- baxtr 1y ago
  So it’s not like the moon landing since the horizon is much longer than a decade.

z3phyr 1y ago

I think cryptanalysis as a discipline is not massively funded. All of the cryptography is only as strong as the collective failure of all human intelligence so far to break it. Most people consider cryptography as a "solved" problem, but I don't think it is. I am sure if enough cryptologists try algorithmic methods and are well compensated for it, they will likely find algorithmic weaknesses (and invent new kinds of mathematics) that can bring down complexity of solving such schemes, even before we have real and functional Shor machines.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> I think cryptanalysis as a discipline is not massively funded. Really? That would be a change.
- z3phyr 1y ago
  I guess massively is the relative word. But I will stand by the claim that we can discover/invent new mathematical methods that can aid in cryptanalysis, if not directly by cryptographers, then by some adjacent field.

pythops 1y ago

Looks great, thanks for sharing

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]