Encryption is less secure than we thought

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by signed0 on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @08:25AM (#6211071)

TLDR: Bloch doubts that the failure of the uniformity assumption means that cryptographic systems in wide use today are fundamentally insecure. “My guess is that it will show that some of them are slightly less secure than we had hoped, but usually in the process, we’ll also figure out a way of patching them.”

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by conformal on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @09:34AM (#6211356)

the article title is a total troll, thx mit.

for a real world example of failed uniformity assumptions, see cryptocat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by moocowduckquack on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:10PM (#6212328)

How is "Less secure than we thought" a troll title, given that the article is about how one of the fundamental assumptions of cryptography is less secure than we thought? It doesn't say insecure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by pessimizer on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:44PM (#6213027)

Maybe he's looking for "Possibly Encryption Might be Somewhat Less Secure Than We Personally May or May Not Have Thought At One Time, Technically."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by moocowduckquack on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:53PM (#6213096)

Hmm, seems a bit less snappy, somehow.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by tjoff on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:31PM (#6212466)

They make it sound like patching will alleviate the problem but patching is not a solution for a lot of use cases (where it is unfeasible to redo the encryption or when the NSA already has the ciphertext).

(not that "slightly less secure than we had hoped" is enough reason to panic.)

[ Parent | on HN ]