[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hashed hash
[email protected] foolishly says:
>I'm planning on implementing the "cryptographic protection of databases"
And wonders about the hash being too fast to compute, that a
brute-force traversal of the database would be too easy. The idea is
then to hash a bunch of times to burn CPU cycles, but what if the hash
is a group, extra hashing could be reversed quickly. (Did I get that
right?)
Well, as the LOUD proponent of making secret keys s-l-o-w-e-r to
decrypt, I have thought about this a bit, and have a suggestion:
Hash once, then do a zillion encryptions of the hash with a non-group
cypher like DES.
Another idea (something I have thought less about): send every legit
user of the database a custom version with the parts encrypted with
that user's public key--and do the trick mailing list companies use,
scatter some dummy info in the list. When a dummy (not just me) gets
a junk mailing, go beat up on the user who's copy had to have supplied
the junk. Not perfect: combinations of dummies are needed in case the
junk mailer cracks multiple copies (multiple work) and then trys to
sift unique dummies that way. Another problem: it is expensive to
monitor the dummies. (1990's biz opportunity?, the monitoring of data
that no one is supposed to have.)
-kb, the Kent who doesn't want to be thought of as only a card player
--
Kent Borg +1 (617) 776-6899
[email protected]
[email protected]
Proud to claim 35:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!