On 10/12/06, Leichter, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Beyond that:  Are weak keys even detectable using a ciphertext-only
attack (beyond simply trying them - but that can be done with *any* small
set of keys)?

Yes, generally, that's the definition of a weak key.

But that's an odd
attack to defend against - why not just try all the weak keys (or,
again, any small subset of keys) and see if they work?

Because that's the definition of brute forcing, and generally the key
distribution
is close to uniform in any [symmetric] system that is worth a second glance?

do "continuous online testing":  Compute the entropy of the generated
ciphertext, and its correlation with the plaintext, and sound an
alarm if what you're getting looks "wrong".

This is a decent idea.  Of course, there are scads of problems that
are not detectable by a simple memoryless markov model, but this
would be a decent sanity check on all but the smallest of plaintexts.

I would also want continuous monitoring of my HWRNG outputs; maybe
I wouldn't want a simple entropy check, which a properly-functioning
HWRNG will fail with a probability predicted by chance, but perhaps
a graphical display of the previous values.  I'm not a visual thinker,
but I don't think any amount of statistics are going to be as useful in
detecting deviations from uniformity as a plot and a human brain.
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be the development of an
easy way to factor large prime numbers.'' [sic] -- Bill Gates  -><-
<URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/>
GPG fingerprint: 9D3F 395A DAC5 5CCC 9066  151D 0A6B 4098 0C55 1484

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to