![]() ![]() There's much more the user has to remember for every exchange with every other user. (E.g., as Daniel mentioned the algorithm you described would be vulnerable to many standard attacks like letter frequency analysis, analyzing periods in the text, exploiting patterns in underlying plaintext, etc.)Īdditionally, using secret algorithms is significantly more difficult from a usability standpoint. That can't be done with your private algorithm which often are much weaker than the implementer may think. With a well-vetted public algorithm anyone can come along and try to analyze it and see if there are any serious vulnerabilities. If you lose a key through an attack or need to securely send messages with a new party, you don't need to invent a totally new algorithm. Meanwhile, while using standard well-vetted cryptographic algorithms, we separate the algorithm (where you don't mind if someone steals it) from the key that is computationally unfeasible to brute-force (e.g., to brute-force a 256-bit symmetric key if every proton/neutron on Earth (all 10^51 of them) each tried a billion keys a second, in a million years of brute forcing it, you'd only have a 1 in 1000 chance of breaking it). To regain the security through obscurity, you have to come up with a totally new cryptographic algorithm, get cryptographic experts to securely analyze the new algorithm, and secretly exchange the algorithm with all parties that need to communicate. So if any actor with access to the algorithm ever leaves your organization, or you are hacked, or source code (or an executable) of a encryption/decryption program is somehow leaked/stolen, then you've completely lost all the security from your algorithm being obscure. The reason that relying on security through obscurity is frowned upon, is that once the algorithm is leaked or broken, you've totally lost all the security gained by obscurity. Side note: I would understand completely why security through obscurity wouldn't work for people saying things like "I'll just use weird OS and I'll be safe because who the hell understands weird OS!" I am asking purely asking about sending an encrypted message back and forth, that if intercepted by a third party would not be able to realistically crack due to its obscurity. Why wouldn't it be more-or-less impossible to decrypt our message without the program or formula itself (or at least for several years)? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |