Re: More info in my AES128-CBC question

2007-04-24 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:59:54PM -0700, Aram Perez wrote: No, there will be message integrity. For those of you asking, here's a high level overview of the protocol is as follows: [...] 3) Data needing confidentiality is encrypted with the SK in the mode selected in step 1. The

Re: More info in my AES128-CBC question

2007-04-24 Thread Aram Perez
Hi Nico, On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:59:54PM -0700, Aram Perez wrote: No, there will be message integrity. For those of you asking, here's a high level overview of the protocol is as follows: [...] 3) Data needing confidentiality is

Re: More info in my AES128-CBC question

2007-04-24 Thread Leichter, Jerry
Some of the messages in this stream have demonstrated why it can be difficult to get non-crypto people to listen to advice from crypto experts: Cryptography research is, by its nature, a pretty absolute thing. We find attacks, we try to eliminate them. There's a strong tendency to view *any*

RE: More info in my AES128-CBC question

2007-04-24 Thread Geoffrey Hird
Leichter, Jerry wrote: Suppose we use AES128-CBC with a fixed IV. It's clear that the only vulnerability of concern occurs when a key is reused. OK, where do No, remember that if the IV is in the clear, an attacker can make some controlled bit changes in the first plaintext block. (There has

Re: More info in my AES128-CBC question

2007-04-24 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:23:54AM -0700, Aram Perez wrote: On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:59:54PM -0700, Aram Perez wrote: No, there will be message integrity. For those of you asking, here's a high level overview of the protocol is as follows:

Training your customers to be phishing victims, part umpteen.

2007-04-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
The following is a real email, with minor details removed, in which J.P. Morgan Chase works hard to train its customers to become phishing victims. I've left in the name that the email was sent under -- I see no reason to protect the guilty. The original version of the email was multipart