13
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
13 points (93.3% liked)
Cybersecurity
5734 readers
11 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !cybersecurity@lemmy.capebreton.social !securitynews@infosec.pub !netsec@links.hackliberty.org !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If A can run this program at will and it determines the minimum value, it's O(log(n)) to determine what B is, even with perfect encryption, by using arbitrary values of A.
INT X = MAX INT PREV_X = 0 BOOL B_IS_MIN = True
While (X != PREV_X){
PREV_X = X B_IS_MIN = Encrypted_Min(X,B)
If(B_IS_MIN), X = X/2 If(!B_IS_MIN), X = X*1.5
}
Unless I've made a typo, this psuedocode will step to B in log time, and will break the while loop once it's found, even if the user has no way to know the value of B besides the minimum.
Indeed, I didn't think of that. And would it be possible to allow only one check and destroy/make the information of B unusable after this check?
Thank you for your reply!
With some more restrictions, you may want to look into oblivious transfer https://yewtu.be/watch?v=wE5cl8J27Is
that's interesting indeed! thank you very much!
Possibly. I'm not a big crypto guy, but it's my understanding that any kind of transaction has a chance of being repeated. If there were a bad actor, and that bad actor used a VPN to swap identities, he could narrow this down considerably and weaken encryption. My code is as dumb as it gets, willing to consider 1 as a valid encryption key, but smarter code would be a lot more efficient.
On top of that, you wanted this minimum code to run on A's computer. If you do not trust A, then you've given a potential bad actor a program that could be decompiled to unencrypt your keys.
It sounds to me like in your current state, you need to trust A before you do this operation, and if you do, you can just share an unencrypted B.
Alright thank you for your reply, I'll think about it :) maybe having a vérification that can be done in any computer and any amount of time is just not possible for my use case