So I read up on "Diffie-Hellman" key exchange which to my knowledge is a way for two parties to create a "shared secret" but I don’t really know if this is a public key or a private key or something else entirely.
When I look up how Tor works, many videos use the analogy of the locked box. We establish an entry node, relay node, exit node (call them A, B, C). I send a locked box to A who unlocks it and inside is another locked box with a message included, "send this to B." A sends this box to B, who unlocks it and sees another locked box with a note, "send this to C." B sends the box to C, who unlocks it and sees a message, "Fetch the contents of somewebsite.com" (the final request).
I don’t know if this analogy makes sense or if it’s even accurate.
Is this key exchange something that is done with the client and each of the three nodes, and that is how I am able to encrypt the message several times? Or is there some other algorithm used instead? I see that Tor uses RSA but I’m still unclear on how it all works together.
Trying to understand what is going on. It would help to see a minimal example using the actual encryption techniques.
One way to secure a password in the database is to hash it with salt i.e. appending a random string to the password and then hash it and store the value.
Does encrypting the
password || salt then hashing it make it more secure? Is it really necessary (or can I skip the encryption part)?
I am looking for a cross-platform way to encrypt credentials I need to send to a client.
I know encrypted zip archives leak metadata and can be tampered with, but how strong is the encryption cypher?
zip -ejr "/path/to/folder.zip" "/path/to/folder"
I am new to GPG so I may be going about this all wrong. I have some files I would like to encrypt symmetrically using AES256, but I want to sign them with my GPG key. I need to automate this process however so I’m using
--batch and I pass the symmetric key after
--passphrase. Since it needs to be automated, I’ve disabled passphrase caching by following the steps here. However, this means my script has no way to pass in the passphrase for my GPG private key. My script will be piping the files to gpg so passing the passphrase to gpg via stdin is also not an option.
If there is no reasonable way to pass both the AES password and private key passphrase, I might consider doing this in two steps, with gpg symmetrically encrypting and then a second round of gpg for signing. It seems excessive though, considering gpg can clearly do this in one step if one passes the private key passphrase interactively.
For reference, I’m using gpg2 exclusively and don’t care about backwards compatibility with gpg 1.x.
Here is the command I’m currently using for encryption. It encrypts and signs as expected, but I can only pass it the private key’s passphrase interactively in the text-based dialog "window".
gpg2 --batch --passphrase <my-long-symmetric-password> --sign --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 plaintext.txt
I want to encrypt a JSON file while exposing its interface (the name of the object fields) in clear text.
Since this exposes part of the content of the file, my guess is that an attacker could use this to hack the encryption key.
Are there encryption methods that can circumvent, or at least be safer for cases like this?
I am mostly convinced that knowing part of the content of an encrypted file can make attacks easier, but I do not know if there is a technical term for such conditions or how to evaluate if some algorithms are safer or not. So far I am specially interested if using
gpg would be OK.
How would you design a server/client system where a client is granted a key to encrypt/decrypt data, but the key could be revoked/redistributed by the server? Data encrypted prior must still be readable with the new key.
A simple scenario:
- Client wants to send a document to a server
- Client encrypts the document with some client-side credentials and sends to server
- Server receives document and stores in database
- Client requests document, receives, then decrypts. The roundtrip is complete.
Now, suppose the client credentials are compromised and key used to encrypt/decrypt data is stolen. The client changes their password, etc, but the key that can decrypt incoming data is still an issue.
My question is about redistributing an encryption key without having to re-encrypt all of the clients data. Are there any patterns that can help me with this? It feels like a variation of symmetric encryption with a KEK and DEK, but I’m having trouble figuring out how to encrypt something on the client side without exposing the DEK.
I have some encryption understanding however I fail to get my head around following scenarios. I would like to know if they are possible with a zero knowledge encryption system.
What the system can or can’t do can be added to the answer. Example:
- The system needs to keep a encrypted copy of the key.
- The user has to have the key on a USB stick.
In the end, all scenarios ask the same questions.
- Can the user access his data?
- Does the system know about his data?
Scenario 1: User logs in on a new computer. Does not have the key with him.
Scenario 2: User logs in on a new computer. Does have the key with him (e.g. USB stick).
Scenario 3: User lost his password. His identity has been verified and approved.
Scenario 4: New sub-users are assigned to the same resource.
I’m looking for an unusual solution that uses SFTP server for data transfer but said SFTP server also should act an encryption proxy i.e. all the data it stores on the server side should be encrypted. Although I could use host (OS-wide) encryption it is not gonna be effective during runtime if the hoster I use decided to peek at it or will be forced by 3rd party or crappy government.
I did some googling but the only thing I found was: https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs Problem is I dont want no custom clients, I want to hide ANY implementation from the client, it should be just your basic SFTP you can use anywhere, even on your microwave, let alone phone or notebook.
This variant: https://serverfault.com/questions/887167/sftp-with-data-encryption-at-rest seems useable but again, at runtime it only protects against other normal users (which I dont have).
Being not a cryptography expert, I am having some basic questions on how to manage keys wrt. sodium-plus. Let me briefly explain the context: the use case involves sending data from a web frontend to a backend, but the backend should not be able to read it (deliberate design choice due to privacy concerns). The data in question needs to be usable from different client machines (the same frontend used at different times on differnet machines). It should be en- and decrypted using a secret that is under the control of the user and not stored by the application. There is no second user involved that should be able to decrypt the data, so I see this as a scenario for using a shared-key encyption approach.
I am looking into using sodium-plus.js for this and in particular to use
crypto_secretbox, but am actually not clear on how to manage the key part in the scenario — ultimately, the user needs to have a way to access the same data on a different machine. Looking through the API documentation, I see two options:
- Generate a random key, convert it to a hex string, present the hex presentation to the user and leave it up to the user how she stores it. Then the user could use this hex presentation on the next client machine to decrypt her data. Unfortunately, I seem to be unable to re-create a cryptographic key from the hex presentation (
hex2bin returns a (Promise for a) string). Is this even feasible? Also, I’m not at all convinced that this approach is not entirely defeating the idea of generating a random key in the first place?
- Derive a key from a password via
crypto_pwhash that the user has to specify. However, this requires also a salt, so I’m back in a similar unclear situation on how to handle it: if the user would give the same password on a different machine (on which to decrypt the data) I also have to use the same salt to generate the same cryptographic key. How do people handle this?
If I could easily have read up on all of this, I would appreciate pointers, as my search-fu seems to fail me.
DynamoDB offers encryption at rest, in 3 tiers: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/EncryptionAtRest.html
- AWS owned CMK – Default encryption type. The key is owned by DynamoDB (no additional charge).
- AWS managed CMK – The key is stored in your account and is managed by AWS KMS (AWS KMS charges apply).
- Customer managed CMK – The key is stored in your account and is created, owned, and managed by you. You have full control over the CMK (AWS KMS charges apply).
what is the best tier to use if i want to use it over the application level encryption in your opinion and why ?