Re^3: Short & Sweet Encryption?


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks

Re^3: Short & Sweet Encryption?

by Anonymous Monk

on Jul 30, 2006 at 15:55 UTC ( [id://564628]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: Short & Sweet Encryption?
in thread Short & Sweet Encryption?

To encode a high quality 4MP image, XOR requires a 17,000,000 bit (non-reusable) key. Other top ciphers require a 64 or 128 bit (reusable) key. XOR requires extra bits to compensate for its inherent insecurity.

If your key management system is secure enough to exchange and store a key as big as the data to encrypt, why don't you the system to protect the plaintext instead of the key?

Comment on Re^3: Short & Sweet Encryption?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Short & Sweet Encryption?
by thor (Priest) on Jul 30, 2006 at 20:50 UTC

Vigenère Cipher

As far as why you would implement such a thing, I leave that to your imagination. I wasn't even saying that it was a particularly good choice for this application. I was just defending xor-based ciphers in general.

thor

The only easy day was yesterday

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom