> Thus the remote access to the RPi wouldn't pose a risk for using the protocol beside the obvious risks that you always get in such a sc...

> Thus the remote access to the RPi wouldn't pose a risk for using the protocol beside the obvious risks that you always get in such a scenario. That risk didn't exist without the custom cipher construct (KC-system is still independently vulnerable as it was without the CC-system). This means the construct has increased the attack surface, potentially critically. > The system I described is not trivially defeated because defeating it implies defeating KC. Your system introduces potential new vectors to defeat KC. If KC were not broken, this construct likely weakens KC. If KC were broken, this construct may provide some minor protection. Whether it provides sufficient additional protection to actually protect the data from an adversary capable of breaking KC is extremely unlikely. Given KC is a peer-reviewed secure ciphersuite and CC is not, the emphasis should be on keeping KC secure - not weakening it to introduce an untested (likely insecure) ciphersuite in a custom composition. This is doubly the case given significant and on-going real-world costs of implementing and maintaining this custom solution. > My point is that _if_ AES is broken without our knowledge, using the system I described can still make untargeted-surveillance impractical. An adversary capable of automating AES decryption would already have automated weak-cryptosystem decryption. This adds nothing except cost, complexity, and faux security.

Posted by kelson on Apr 14, 2015, 7:23 PM

Tags

• pricing (Other)

Related issues

• its like owning a personal computer in 1986.
• Not at all, actually.
• A car battery with reduced range is still perfectly useable as a storage battery for a PV system.
• Here in Argentina we are in permanent summer time GMT-3 since a long time, but we should be in GMT-4.
• You should do some basic research yourself.
• Well, actually not.