Re: Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?
From: Adam O'Brien (anon101_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: Brian Inglis: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- In reply to: John Hooven: "Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Next in thread: John Hooven: "Re: Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Reply: John Hooven: "Re: Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 7 Feb 2005 10:03:13 -0800
> A colleague of mine has proposed a system to secure at-rest data
If your collegue has invented a totally new cryptosystem then history
strongly suggests that it will be weak. For a good cryptosystem,
reverse-engineering is not even a problem. Proper cryptosystems assume
that people know the algorithm . Unless they know the key they should
not be able to break the system.
> All components needed to decrypt the data are on the
computer.
If this means that they key is also on the system then the system is
vulnerable.
Adam
- Next message: Brian Inglis: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- In reply to: John Hooven: "Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Next in thread: John Hooven: "Re: Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Reply: John Hooven: "Re: Is this system vulnerable to reverse-engineering attack?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Loading