Good, modern cryptography offers a level of security unparalleled in the physical world, and at a processing cost which any computer can handle. Why would you intentionally choose something inferior?
Good, modern cryptography offers a level of security unparalleled in the physical world, and at a processing cost which any computer can handle. Why would you intentionally choose something inferior?
This is, obviously, a really old example, because modern hardware makes encrypting things quick and easy, and decrypting things quick and easy. But imagine strong encryption in the 1980s - you had to balance strength with time with size and then try to cram it into low-specced hardware.
My point was that there's no point in picking something with a known back door when there are perfectly good, non-compromised alternatives.
You can never be infinitely certain, but nor can you be certain your non-backdoored crypto is secure. There are cases where "the NSA leaks their top-secret backdoor to the internet" is a vanishingly small threat vector compared to other possibilities (e.g. rubber hoses).
>Good, modern cryptography offers a level of security unparalleled in the physical world, and at a processing cost which any computer can handle. Why would you intentionally choose something inferior?
You wouldn't. But if it later turns out the NSA has a backdoor in the algorithm you happened to pick, and for whatever reason you're unable or unwilling to change algorithms now, that still doesn't mean "you've given up already and cryptography is useless to you".
True. But "is this algorithm crackable?" is a question that can be answered with experimentation and math. "Has the NSA lost its keys or its scruples, and if not, will they ever?" cannot be answered at all until you know you've been hacked.
> But if it later turns out the NSA has a backdoor in the algorithm you happened to pick, and for whatever reason you're unable or unwilling to change algorithms now, that still doesn't mean "you've given up already and cryptography is useless to you".
Maybe not, but it does mean you value something else more than you value security. Yes, everyone makes cost/benefit decisions about security. But if your answer to "whoops, whoever knows this trick can see all our bank transactions" is "meh, it would take like, a week to fix that," you're placing a pretty low value on security.
RC4 actually has a huge internal state. You could use a 1600 bit key with it if you wanted to.