Please, can any extensively explain the importance of super encryption in relation to attacks experienced by single standard algorithms
Asked
Active
Viewed 144 times
-1
-
2By "super encryption" do you mean cascaded (multiple) symmetric encryption, i.e. using multiple symmetric ciphers with independent keys to encrypt data? In that case, in general a cascade is as difficult to break as the first cipher, and the latter ciphers don't necessarily add any security. Of course the details matter, and the latter ciphers can allow it to be as difficult to break as the strongest cipher (and the weaker ones don't add any security). Because of this we usually just use the strongest cipher and dump the rest. – SAI Peregrinus Aug 13 '22 at 16:43
-
Yes, I meant multiple encryption. But can superencryption help in solving the problem of bruteforce? – Ubochi Chibueze Nwamouh Aug 13 '22 at 21:54
-
2This site is Q/A questions only, soliciting for personal advice is not considered proper. – Maarten Bodewes Aug 14 '22 at 09:22
-
From a single-user perspective, it's unnecessary. However, double encryption provides better multi-user security. Generally though, nobody bothers with multiple encryption, especially since it's much slower and more complicated to implement alongside what @SAIPeregrinus said. – samuel-lucas6 Aug 14 '22 at 13:17
-
1Nothing in modern Cryptography AES-256 is enough for all – kelalaka Aug 14 '22 at 20:24
1 Answers
1
If you're using a strong cipher like AES, there is no need to cascade it. The only reason to cascade is if the cipher has a small key size and silly federal regulations demand that you keep using it. In that case, you can increase the effective keysize. This is the case with 3DES, although note that such constructions are weakened by a meet-in-the-middle attack that drops keyspace from $2^{168}$ to $2^{112}$.
If you can use a cipher that's already secure, there's no reason to cascade multiple ciphers.
forest
- 15,253
- 2
- 48
- 103