Il Gio 9 Apr 2020, 05:36 Michael Han ha scritto:
> >> Why?
>
> A packet can be captured, altered its payload, and recomputed its
> checksum(s) while transmitting, that's why encryption is needed. This
> example sounds pedantic but serving the purpose of the argument.
> With encryption the data in
>> Why?
A packet can be captured, altered its payload, and recomputed its
checksum(s) while transmitting, that's why encryption is needed. This
example sounds pedantic but serving the purpose of the argument.
With encryption the data integrity is ensured during transmission at least,
but data can
The only way to corrupt a message transmitted on an encrypted link is to
break the encryption. There is a tiny argument to be made that messages
should be checksummed for protection even without the encryption, but these
links should always be encrypted.
The chance of a 160 bit checksum being cor
Hi Michael,
"Checksum itself (even cryptographic checksum) can’t guarantee data integrity
as packet in flight can be altered along with the new checksum.”
Why?
If either checksum or the payload was altered, the packet will be
retransmitted. Furthermore we could implement error correction codes
>> but not bulletproof?
tcp checksum is weak and can't detect all corrupt packet; and bit flip can
happen anywhere within the stack, and can be caused by malfunction of ram,
or say, cosmic rays.
Statistically a corrupt packet survives all layers of check is low, and
even a packet is corrupted, app
