News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New TLS Padding Oracles by olliej on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @01:47PM (#19257135)
CBC has a fundamental weakness in that you can toggle one bit at a time and get a predictable change. Encrypt-then-authenticate would obviously resolve that, but that's trivially broken by breaking SHA1/2 ;)

Of course a problem with encrypt then authenticate is that you can verify the identity of the sender without decrypting the content, which is of course why A then E happened in the first place - the threat model turned out to be incorrect. For messaging platforms I would still lean towards authenticate then encrypt as I think the attack model is different.

Re:New TLS Padding Oracles by tptacek on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @01:58PM (#19257231)
No, this isn't a fundamental weakness of CBC. In fact, CTR is even more susceptible to this problem (a CBC bitflip totally corrupts the block to which it's applied, and creates a predictable change in the subsequent block; a CTR bitflip simply flips the matching decrypted plaintext bit; in that sense CTR is totally and perfectly malleable).

Also: nobody uses SHA1 anymore, SHA1 and SHA2 aren't MACs (you're thinking of HMAC), and even MD5 is still unbroken in HMAC.