News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by CWuestefeld on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @09:52AM (#6211466)
Ah, but if you compress it into, say, a ZIP file, then an attacker would be able to look for the characteristics that are typical of a ZIP file. The opening bytes, for example, are completely predictable. This would be just like the Nazi mistake of always ending messages in "Heil Hitler".
Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by parfe on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:23PM (#6212878)
>This would be just like the Nazi mistake of always ending messages in "Heil Hitler".

Got any source for that? Closest I can find is a Polish cryptologist facetiously adding "Heil Hitler!" to ENIGMA encrypted messages he sent to Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by Tloewald on Thursday August 15, 2013 @10:17AM (#6217871)
I believe the actual issue was that messages started with very predictable greetings.

"we relied on the fact that the greater number of messages began with the letters ANX—German for "to", followed by X as a spacer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma

Compressed files (indeed ANY files) having predictable headers is, of course, a major problem, and the argument that you could just omit the common stuff won't work very well either. (Let's suppose you leave off all the static parts until you get to a length stamp -- lengths are a classic example of not-very-random numbers (more significant digits are prone to be lower-valued).

In general, you want your cryptographic system to be reasonably foolproof when used by bored, careless people. For this reason rolling compression and encryption into a single implementation is probably the best option.

Re:Encryption is less secure than we thought by eru on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @11:22AM (#6212045)
Just cut out the common parts.