Cryptography experts have proven long ago that ROT-13 is weak against simple brute-force attack. But it turns out that there is also a little-known security hole in ROT-26, which allows a sophisticated eavesdropper to read the message WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE PASSWORD.
Cryptography experts suggest, for robust security, the use of at least ROT-39 encoding should be encouraged. This takes a minimum number of log_2[2^39] tries to decode by brute force.
Some experts have suggested that ROT-39 shares the same se
You can preserve the existing encryption engine by simply using more rounds. The 2-round version has been broken, so cryptographers recommend using the full 16 rounds, as is done in other encryption systems.
svefg cbfg (Score:5, Funny)
Second post (Score:3, Funny)
The joke is on Slashdot, I for one have been using ROT26 for several years already.
Warning! Security hole in ROT-13 and ROT-26! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cryptography experts have proven long ago that ROT-13 is weak against simple brute-force attack. But it turns out that there is also a little-known security hole in ROT-26, which allows a sophisticated eavesdropper to read the message WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE PASSWORD.
Cryptography experts suggest, for robust security, the use of at least ROT-39 encoding should be encouraged. This takes a minimum number of log_2[2^39] tries to decode by brute force.
Some experts have suggested that ROT-39 shares the same se
Simpler solution (Score:2)
You can preserve the existing encryption engine by simply using more rounds. The 2-round version has been broken, so cryptographers recommend using the full 16 rounds, as is done in other encryption systems.