Content deleted Content added
Word usage |
→One-time pad?: should be mentioned. |
||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Cryptography|importance=Top|computer-science-importance=High}}
}}
{{Copied|from=Reciprocal cipher|from_oldid=594888807|to=Symmetric-key algorithm|to_oldid=694433513|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symmetric-key_algorithm&diff=prev&oldid=694433513}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-24">24 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-11">11 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_New_Haven/Seminar_in_Academic_Inquiry_and_Writing_(Fall_2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:CodeBreakNight|CodeBreakNight]].
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 10:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Untitled==
Re: Statement "The symmetric-key algorithms can't be used for authentication or non-repudiation purposes."
Isn't authentication possible, using a KDC?
Line 4 ⟶ 14:
Re: authentication is possible, but you need a trusted channel first.. which involves asymmetric cryto...
Sounds weird anyway.
Quite a few sections of this document are written in broken or poor English. Someone needs to fix this! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.102.71.38|130.102.71.38]] ([[User talk:130.102.71.38|talk]]) 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Word usage ==
Line 13 ⟶ 25:
The word "quality" unmodified has no meaning in this sentence. It is like saying "the plane was flying at an altitude." If it is off the ground, it has altitude, but, unmodified, gives no information on how far off the ground. High altitude? Low altitude? I believe you are trying to say "high quality." If this is so, may I suggest saying so?
[[User:Kjdamrau|Kjdamrau]] 06:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau
:''Quality'' is often used by itself in colloquial English and some journalistic writing to mean ''(of) good quality''. The word ''good'' would probably be better here. [[User:Koro Neil|Koro Neil]] ([[User talk:Koro Neil|talk]]) 01:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
== Content yet lacking depth ==
Seems as much on asymmetric as on symmetric encryption.
Why not move description of other concepts to the respective article or - if comparing - to a higher level, eg to an article on crypto systems in general.
And, sorry to say this, substance is yet lacking.
Whoever has a few serious math books at hand and an understanding of the taxonomy ... thanks.
14 Sep 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.58.17.179|84.58.17.179]] ([[User talk:84.58.17.179|talk]]) 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==On the proposed merger with symmetric key management==
'''Oppose merger''' Key management is a very large, hard to adequately cover, easy to get wrong (both in execution and in description), topic. It simply can't be adequately handled as a sub section of this article, and to try will result in lowered quality of this article, which already needs improvement. So, for both content and for reasons of WP presentation of that content, this merger is not a good idea. [[User:Ww|ww]] ([[User talk:Ww|talk]]) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Oppose merger''' This page is basically an overview over different topics on symmetric key algorithms. To keep this overview readable it is a good idea to keep the details on each of these topics in separate articles. [[Special:Contributions/62.203.28.106|62.203.28.106]] ([[User talk:62.203.28.106|talk]]) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
== Trivially Related? Wording? ==
Is the phrase a term of art or a conventional term? If not, it seems to me it should be changed to "closely related". Trivialy related would seem to me to suggest the relationship exists but it is small or insignificant, trivial. This seems exactly opposite to what the reality is- the relationship is identical or the keys differ by a small relatively insignificant transformation, a trivial difference.
Thoughts?
--[[User:Δζ|Δζ]] ([[User talk:Δζ|talk]]) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
: The term "trivial" is used in mathematics to express that something is easy (see [[Trivial_(mathematics)]]).[[Special:Contributions/85.3.72.132|85.3.72.132]] ([[User talk:85.3.72.132|talk]]) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
: It should be removed. If the twp keys aren't identical it isn't symmetric. If they are different they are asymmetric. If the difference is trivial, then it may just be a poorly chosen key pair.
[[User:Kernel.package|Kernel.package]] ([[User talk:Kernel.package|talk]]) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
== Introduction weak ==
The first two sentences could easily be merged/joined, as they convey similar information.
== Possible conflict of interest issue ==
The line, "It is possible to encrypt without using any fixed algorithm. Non-Algorithmic Encryption[5]" contains a link to a page which offers products for sale. The phrase "Non-Algorithmic Encryption" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms and may possibly be a trademark belonging to a Swedish company called TRNG98. [[User:JLKrause|JLKrause]] ([[User talk:JLKrause|talk]]) 03:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
: Moreover, there is a lack of secondary sources [[WP:OR]]. Typically, encryption schemes on Wikipedia should have been published (i.e. peer reviewed) and analyzed. 05:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766|2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766]] ([[User talk:2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== removed "well-respected" from "Implementations" ==
RC4 is mentioned and is not "well-respected" nowadays! has been known to be insecure for _years_. source: ivan ristic, bulletproof SSL, feistyduck.com.
from a historic point of view RC4 deserves respect for sure - but any statement to that regard would have to be specific enough not to lead readers to think RC4 is still considered secure as of today. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/37.209.180.8|37.209.180.8]] ([[User talk:37.209.180.8|talk]]) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Merging and redirecting [[Reciprocal cipher]] ==
I am [[WP:BOLD|BOLDly]] implementing the proposed merge of [[Reciprocal cipher]] into this page ([[Symmetric-key algorithm]]) from [[Special:Diff/470191675|January 2012]], having seen no objection under [[WP:MERGECLOSE]]. Please feel free to reopen discussion on this if you think that's needed. Thanks, '''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235#top|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 06:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:Done. '''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235#top|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Telegramy [[User:Petridahura1|Petridahura1]] ([[User talk:Petridahura1|talk]]) 23:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
== Securing Local Data ==
While the article on asymmetric or public key cryptography lays an emphasis on securing communication channels, here, you also talk about sharing keys. I am missing information which allows to classify and qualify encryption systems for use on locally stored data. Currently there is no easy way to deduce that symmetric algorithms should be preferable in such a context.
TIA --[[User:Psycho Chicken|Psycho Chicken]] ([[User talk:Psycho Chicken|talk]]) 05:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
== Use of ''let'' ==
''Let, the character is “T”.<p>
''Step 4: Let 1000 as divisor''.<p>
I suspect English is not the writer's first language. [[User:Koro Neil|Koro Neil]] ([[User talk:Koro Neil|talk]]) 01:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
== One-time pad? ==
Isn't a one-time pad a symmetric cipher? If so it isn't mentioned here. [[User:RichardAlexanderHall|RichardAlexanderHall]] ([[User talk:RichardAlexanderHall|talk]]) 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
:Technically it is -- the keys on both sides are the same, however it is not really a practical example, since the shared secret is very large. Do you think it makes sense to use it as an example? [[User:Namnatulco|Namnatulco]] ([[User talk:Namnatulco|talk]]) 14:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:: I agree that the one-time pad is a kind of symmetric cipher, and should be mentioned here. I see that it's currently very briefly mentioned. Perhaps a few more words may be useful.
:: I fail to see why [[User:Namnatulco|Namnatulco]] feels one-time pad is "not really practical", since the [[one-time pad]] article has a long list of examples of its use in practice -- clearly those users feel it is practical. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
== About history and differences between algorithm and cryptography ==
I have a couple of sources that would give more of the history/evolution of symmetric-key cryptography. Do you think that would fit here? If not, where do you think it could go? I was wondering because symmetric-key cryptography (I believe) redirects to here.[[User:CodeBreakNight|CodeBreakNight]] ([[User talk:CodeBreakNight|talk]]) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||