Skip to main content

encryption - if one doesn't care about protecting a gpg secret key, is it still as secure as using gpg --symmetric?


Each of Alice and Bob is using gpg just to protect his/her own personal files and not using it as a way to send encrypted text to others. Alice has generated a key (gpg --gen-key) that she uses to encrypt/decrypt her personal files (gpg --encrypt --recipient="Alice Personal" alice.secrets.txt and gpg --decrypt alice.secrets.txt.gpg). She knows that in order to read and write to alice.secrets.txt.gpg in her another computer, she needs to export her key (both public key and private key) to her second computer, using commands like:


gpg --armor --export "Alice Personal" > alice.personal.public.key.txt
gpg --armor --export-secret-key "Alice Personal" > alice.personal.private.key.txt

and


gpg --import alice.personal.public.key.txt
gpg --import alice.personal.private.key.txt

So she decides to put her encrypted personal files (alice.secrets.txt.gpg) and her key (alice.personal.public.key.txt and alice.personal.private.key.txt) on a cloud sync service for convenience. Because alice.personal.private.key.txt is on cloud, a third party who may get access to her files on cloud has access to the first of the following two, but not the second.




  • something she has: alice.personal.private.key.txt




  • something she knows: the passphrase to unlock the secret key




She's giving up protecting the first in return for convenience.


On the other hand, Bob uses symmetric encryption to protect his secrets (gpg --symmetric bob.secrets.txt and gpg --decrypt bob.secrets.txt.gpg). He also puts his encrypted personal files on a cloud service. To read and write to bob.secrets.txt.gpg on his another computer, he just needs to successfully recall his passphrase.


Maybe Alice and bob should just use Truecrypt or Boxcryptor. Anyway, question is, are Alice's secrets as safe as Bob's secrets provided that their passphrases are equally good?



Answer



Alice's approach is ever so slightly safer than Bob's. Every encrypted file gets a new symmetric key, which means that:



  • You'll have to break the symmetric key separately for each file instead of once, and those keys are usually easier to break than proper RSA keys (lower key space for higher performance, as we can't lose time with every new message, be it a document or a connection, and RSA doesn't have to be efficient one the key is generated as we usually use it to cypher a symmetric key used for the rest of the document).

  • You might avoid attacks when both the cyphered and uncyphered documents are know. If Eve knows has the original of document and the version encrypted for Alice, it might make it easier to find the key and use it for all other documents.

  • You might avoid attacks made available by knowing many encrypted messages, which could be similar to what we already know with RSA and low exponents.


Comments

Popular Posts

keyboard - Is there any utility/method to change Windows key bindings to type rare chars to currently empty bindings?

I'm currently typing this post with my windows XP machine and (Spanish) keyboard, and I'd like to add some extra symbols to my text. I could open the "char map" windows utility, look for the desired symbols, and paste them. But I'd like something quickier. For example, when I'm using my OSX Mac at work, I can easily add a ©, ™, ® or similar symbols, just pressing some weird ALT-GR + G / H / J, key combinations. In my (Spanish) keyboard mapping, these combinations are empty, as they don't produce any char at all, which, on the other hand, is perfectly normal and desirable. So, I thought: Why couldn't I add some extra key mappings on top of my currently empty ALT-GR + G/J/H Keys in my Spanish keyboard, and thus, being able to quickly type these special symbols? So that's my question: Is there any utility/method to achieve that effect under windows? (My version is XP). I've even googled this for some time but no luck. I've been a long term Hot...

virtualization - How to select paravirtualization interface in VirtualBox?

Given a windows 8 host system (Intel Core i5) and a Linux Fedora host, I would like to determine the optimal setting for the paravirtual interface. Options are none Default Legacy minimal Hyper-V KVM This page suggest the selection is only based on the guest system: The biggest change in VirtualBox 5.0 is the introduction of paravirtualization support, bringing higher performance and time-keeping accuracy to supported guest operating systems (Hyper-V on Windows and KVM on Linux). Is that correct? Answer The VirtualBox Manual , in the section titled Paravirtualization providers explains very clearly when each should be used (emphasis added): Minimal: Announces the presence of a virtualized environment. Additionally, reports the TSC and APIC frequency to the guest operating system. This provider is mandatory for running any Mac OS X guests. KVM: Presents a Linux KVM hypervisor interface which is recognized by Linux kernels starting with version 2.6.25. VirtualBox's implementati...

Desktop reboots itself on sleep or hibernate

I have been using an ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard for main home desktop workstation, operating Windows Vista x64. This computer has right from day one not been able to enter hibernate or standby; after Windows performs its final actions and brings the machine down, it would automatically revive itself for a reboot. Updating to the second latest BIOS (1201)has not helped (the latest BIOS revision would induce video refresh problems rendering it unusable). I have been reading related discussions on incidents similar to mine to no avail of a true workable solution. They appear to be more speculative guesses rather than actual knowledge on the inner workings of motherboard hardware. Does anybody have any electronic engineering experience on PC energy-saving standards to provide a more informed opinion how to go about getting this to work? More stories: this motherboard could not even reboot properly the first thing i used it. It was due to refresh rate of the onboard GPU, which had no influe...

security - How is Linux not prone to viruses, malware and those kinds of things?

How is Linux protected against viruses? This question was a Super User Question of the Week . Read the blog entry for more details or contribute to the blog yourself Answer Well, it factually is not... it's just less subject to hackers developing viruses that target Linux systems. Consumer grade computers usually run on Windows and thus, when targeting a wide audience, Windows is the way to go. Don't misunderstand Linux and viruses, there definitely ARE Linux viruses. Some distros have additional protection layers such as SELinux (See here ) in Ubuntu for example. Then there's the default firewall and the fact that alien files don't automatically have permission to be executed. Specific execution permission has to be granted before execution is possible. (See here ) Then there are several other factors that make Linux a hard place to be for viruses usually non-root users on linux systems have no to little executable files at their disposal that would allow for virus...