undefined

Thank you for that link. Your original comment implied that Signal's threat model should have included an attacker-controlled end. The only way to do that is to make decryption impossible by anyone, including the intended recipient. A labyrinthine way to do that would be to substitute the symmetric-encryption algorithm with a hash algorithm, which of course destroys the plaintext, but does accomplish the goal of obfuscating it in transit, at rest, and forever.

by p-o4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Hashing is a part of encryption, maybe you are the one who needs to shore up on the topic?

by AlotOfReading3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

A good hash function is surjective. Encryption is bijective. They're very different things.

by aipatselarom4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Nice try. However, hashing and encryption are two different operations.

Load this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Ctrl-F "hash". No mention of it.

Before being pedantic at least check out the url in that comment to get the basics going.

by sowbug3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This entire thread should be annihilated, but since you mentioned being pedantic...

You're correct that a pure encryption algorithm doesn't use hashing. But real-world encryption systems will include an HMAC to detect whether messages were altered in transit. HMACs do use hash functions.