3 ms·
Your key is based on an insecure RNG. It's trivial to reconstruct the seed and thereby recover the key. Your key isn't random. It's the same every time. This
by sillysaurus2 13y ago
Your key is based on an insecure RNG. It's trivial to reconstruct the seed and thereby recover the key.
Your key isn't random. It's the same every time.
This example also isn't communicating any secrets, so it's not really cryptography.
- smcl 13y agoI think that the author is more interested in the design of the encryption algorithm rather than the specifics of the reference implementation provided. So yeah a dodgy prng was used but is there anything wrong otherwise - i.e. something inside the algorithm itself that reduces its efficacy and makes it vulnerable.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoWell, if they would provide an actual implementation rather than a reference implementation, then I would break it. Breaking cryptography often depends on breaking implementations, not breaking the underlying theory. That's why AES-CTR is theoretically secure but so deviously hard to actually implement.
- quelsolaar 13y agoI note in the comments that the random number generator is not secure in any way. Its just a handy thing for testing, not something you would use in real life.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoOk, well, if you ever actually implement your theory, then I would love to break it for you. Shoot me an email (sillysaurus2 at gmail) if you ever do.