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
Wow, I had never heard about the security hole in ROT-26.
Personally, I think I'll skip ROT-39 and go straight to the state-of-the-art ROT-52, if for no other reason because the attackers are still trying to break ROT-39!
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
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, I had never heard about the security hole in ROT-26.
Personally, I think I'll skip ROT-39 and go straight to the state-of-the-art ROT-52, if for no other reason because the attackers are still trying to break ROT-39!
Re:Warning! Security hole in ROT-13 and ROT-26! (Score:3)
Wow, I had never heard about the security hole in ROT-26.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!