What Encryption?

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 38e815ddd31f0a9⋯.png (30.89 KB, 647x204, 647:204, Screenshot_2020_07.png)

What Encryption? Anonymous 07/28/20 (Tue) 17:45:33 No.6086

Isn't all encryption as simple as three to the power of x mod seventeen equals result, where x is private key.. (See image) If it be so, why is it thus? Wherefore are there different hash functions like shar1, shar2, shar512, whirlpool, strebog? https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=YEBfamv-_do

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/29/20 (Wed) 01:50:23 No.6221

If the answer is 18, what was the question?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/29/20 (Wed) 02:43:53 No.6224

The different hash functions just try to slow down the encryption process so your math cant be undone quickly.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/29/20 (Wed) 08:21:01 No.6244

>>6224

Please explain. I don't get the point. Wouldn't it be easier to generate a really big random number for x in terms of 3^x MOD 17 = result

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/29/20 (Wed) 08:31:11 No.6245

>>6244

The point is that all encryption can be brute forced but the successful encryption algorithms just make brute force attacks harder by taking a longer time to compute.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/30/20 (Thu) 15:33:46 No.6363

>>6245

But how does it make it harder? Don't give me generalities, give me exact mathematical equations!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 07/31/20 (Fri) 15:01:49 No.6438

That's not what a hashing function does. You're talking about just one part of one step of a key exchange to set up a common secret for a cipher scheme that may or may not have been built up using a cryptographic hash function, you're comparing that to hashing functions, and are asking a question about encryption.

A hashing function takes a piece of data and turns it into a random garbled up piece of data of a known size in a non-reversible way, preferably in a manner that even the smallest change in the initial data results in a completely different hash, and that all resulting hashes are equally likely to appear. These are directly used for fingerprinting, signatures and such, serving a completely different purpose than encryption.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/01/20 (Sat) 10:10:14 No.6510

>>6438

Baka! Looks like you didn’t watch the whole video.. start at four minutes and twenty two seconds.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/01/20 (Sat) 11:30:04 No.6512

File: ba3c41b1e083726⋯.gif (1011.87 KB, 192x108, 16:9, mortified_stallmanu.gif)

>>6510

Absorb the video yourself and ask better questions, fucker. You can't conflate all branches of cryptography with encryption, and especially not one specific step of one specific pattern of encryption.

Is your question why we don't use public-key cryptography for everything, as opposed to using it only for an initial key exchange and shifting over to a symmetric-key schemes? Hashing functions, once again, do not play into this at all.

Public-key cryptography is slow, and on a theoretical level, more susceptible to attacks that lead to faster-than-bruteforce exploitation.

The most popular symmetric encryption schemes are fast. Real fast. Real fuckin' fast and real fuckin' secure. Their only problems are that they can't authoritatively claim a piece of encrypted data has been untampered, and that provide no facilities to get your key from point A to point B in a secure manner.

PKC needs suitably large and yet completely random primes. You want more data, you'll need more numbers. Modern computers aren't equipped to produce completely uniformly spread random numbers on demand to fill such a need, and cutting corners here would drastically reduce the security of anything those numbers are used in. This isn't even an algorithm question. It's a random number generation question. Computers don't have enough entropy to make enough random numbers.

Use words and ask questions that make sense. Is one toy example of taking the modulo of a discrete logarithm really the only goddamned thing you took out of that video?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/01/20 (Sat) 14:09:14 No.6539

>>6512

Are you saying it’s better to use a bigger prime number than 17?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/01/20 (Sat) 15:46:31 No.6541

>>6539

It's not just better, it is absolutely crucial that the modulus is an extremely large prime. And if you want to encrypt data directly, it needs to be big enough to represent your whole data as an integer number. The generator can be anything as long as it's primitive root modulo of that number, that is to say, if you raise it to a series of exponents, it is equally likely to hit any and all possible remainders between 0 and the chosen modulus - 1. Since you're looking for specific properties in the generator and modulus, various standards have proposed a selection of good ones to use, based on security needs and the expected size of the shared secret.

So not only do you need the generator to be a very large prime, you need the chosen numbers to be very large. You have to generate and do exponential math with numbers that are hundreds or thousand of digits long for good keys. You want to bodge together a DH exchange to send someone a 100MB video? You'll be doing math with numbers that are at least as large as the data you're sending, more so if you want it to be secure.

Now you're generating two perfectly random numbers a hundred million digits long and hoping that one of them's prime and that you can find a suitable generator for it, and then doing math on it.

Computers like lots of small numbers that can be processed sequentially in an orderly, cache-friendly fashion. Computers don't like taking three to the power of a goddamned video file, to the power of another goddamned video file, dividing it by yet another goddamned video file and taking the remainder.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/01/20 (Sat) 21:29:28 No.6560

>>6539

Yeah, use 23, or better yet 51.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/05/20 (Wed) 01:38:37 No.7158

>>6560

I can easily find large prime numbers by searching for it https://bigprimes.org/ But the tricky part for me is calculating the primitive root (it's math beyond my level). Soo.. ???

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/05/20 (Wed) 05:47:17 No.7169

>>7158

https://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=ef51422db7db201ebc03c8800f41ba99

The biggest number I could find is 50616710559365751110713043870423963 with primitive root 5

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/05/20 (Wed) 12:05:20 No.7189

File: 2f466458f542e1b⋯.png (18.58 KB, 200x398, 100:199, 200px_Serpent_linearfuncti….png)

ill just leave this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(cipher)

Serpent is a symmetric key block cipher that was a finalist in the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) contest, where it was ranked second to Rijndael. Serpent was designed by Ross Anderson, Eli Biham, and Lars Knudsen.

Like other AES submissions, Serpent has a block size of 128 bits and supports a key size of 128, 192 or 256 bits.[2] The cipher is a 32-round substitution–permutation network operating on a block of four 32-bit words. Each round applies one of eight 4-bit to 4-bit S-boxes 32 times in parallel. Serpent was designed so that all operations can be executed in parallel, using 32 bit slices. This maximizes parallelism, but also allows use of the extensive cryptanalysis work performed on DES.

Serpent took a conservative approach to security, opting for a large security margin: the designers deemed 16 rounds to be sufficient against known types of attack, but specified 32 rounds as insurance against future discoveries in cryptanalysis. The official NIST report on AES competition classified Serpent as having a high security margin along with MARS and Twofish, in contrast to the adequate security margin of RC6 and Rijndael (currently AES).[3] In final voting, Serpent had the fewest negative votes among the finalists, but scored second place overall because Rijndael had substantially more positive votes, the deciding factor being that Rijndael allowed for a far more efficient software implementation.

All publicly known attacks are computationally infeasible, and none of them affect the full 32-round Serpent. A 2011 attack breaks 11 round Serpent (all key sizes) with 2^116 known plaintexts, 2^107.5 time and 2^104 memory (as described in[1]). The same paper also describes two attacks which break 12 rounds of Serpent-256. The first requires 2^118 known plaintexts, 2^228.8 time and 2^228 memory. The other attack requires 2^116 known plaintexts and 2^121 memory but also requires 2^237.5 time.

(it was said that it is too good, you dont need that)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/05/20 (Wed) 14:38:49 No.7190

>>6560

Soo...? is not a question. Ask questions, fucker.

You can find singular primes by using online services, in an arbitrary amount of time, at least ones at or under 300 digits. Good, great.

Can you find primes that are are tens or hundreds of orders of magnitude bigger in a reasonable timeframe (milliseconds) while guaranteeing their randomness? Can you use these generated primes as exponents of exponents in the same timeframe? Even the largest international efforts, computers all around the world exacted to finding prime numbers for years on end haven't managed anything close to what you'd need for this universal public key cryptography solution.

You could maybe fulfill the needs of one single person with a single 10MB file encryption request over several decades, with heavy worldwide effort behind it. One! Just one!

How is this supposed to scale to serving thousands of users every second? It's just not feasible for anything outside of keys, tokens, signatures or small chunks under a different scheme that might as well be a symmetric block cipher.

Also, what the fuck. You want exact mathematical equations (>>6363), but don't know anything about the algebra involved? This shit goes so heavily into the more esoteric corners of group theory that you wouldn't even know how to interpret any results. Hell. the experts in the field (the very ones writing the actual standards that the rest of the world actively uses) don't bother with the mathematical notation and go straight to describing their work in terms of computer code to get the desired results, just so they can get away with writing a measly 50 pages of pure code in a document instead of 1000 page doctorates that nobody can read.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.