• heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Where is this from? I don’t think exposing the key breaks most crypto algorithms, it should still be doing its job.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The private key, or a symmetric key would break the algorithm. It’s kind of the point that a person having those can read it. The public key is the one you can show people.

      • heavy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Doesn’t break the algorithm though, you would just have the key and then can use the algorithm (that still works!) to decrypt data.

        Also you’re talking about one class of cryptography, the concept of key knowledge varies between algorithms.

        My point is an attacker having knowledge of the key is a compromise, not a successful break of the algorithm…

        “the attacker beat my ass until I gave them the key”, doesn’t mean people should stop using AES or even RSA, for example.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          The purpose is to access the data. This is a bypass attack, rather than a mathematical one. It helps to remember that encryption is rarely used in the abstract. It is used as part of real world security.

          There are actually methods to defend against it. The most effective is a “duress key”. This is the key you give up under duress. It will decrypt an alternative version of the file/drive, as well as potentially triggering additional safeguards. The key point is the attacker won’t know if they have the real files, and there is nothing of interest, or dummy ones.

          • heavy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I appreciate the explaination, that’s a cool scheme, but what I saying is the human leaking the key is not the fault of the algorithm.

            Everyone and everything is, on a very pedantic level, weak to getting their ass beat lol

            That doesn’t make it crypt analysis

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              An encryption scheme is only as strong as its weakest link. In academic terms, only the algorithm really matters. In the real world however, implementation is as important.

              The human element is an element that has to be considered. Rubber hose cryptanalysis is a tongue and cheek way of acknowledging that. It also matters since some algorithms are better at assisting here. E.g. 1 time key Vs passwords.

              • heavy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Very informative, I think people will learn from what you’re saying, but it doesn’t really matter to what I’m saying.

                Yes, absolutely, consider the human element in your data encryption and protection schemes and implementations.

                Beating someone with a pipe is a joke, but not really defeating an algorithm.