Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixing typo in 09-04-Testing_for_Weak_Encryption #1150

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 12, 2024

Conversation

Bankde
Copy link
Contributor

@Bankde Bankde commented Jul 12, 2024

This PR covers issue #.

  • This PR handles the issue and requires no additional PRs.
  • You have validated the need for this change.

What did this PR accomplish?

fix the typo in content.

Thank you for your contribution!

@kingthorin
Copy link
Collaborator

@Bankde
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bankde commented Jul 12, 2024

Hi, the ECB is generally referred to "symmetric encryption", not asymmetric.
Right now it's like saying RSA should not be used for symmetric encryption. It is not meaningful.

https://book.hacktricks.xyz/crypto-and-stego/electronic-code-book-ecb

(ECB) Electronic Code Book - symmetric encryption scheme

Edited a bit since it's possible to invent asymmetric ECB if you really want one.

@rbsec rbsec reopened this Jul 12, 2024
@rbsec
Copy link
Collaborator

rbsec commented Jul 12, 2024

This PR fixes a mistake in the content (which is good), but also introduces a bit of a grammatical error, as "in a symmetric encryption" isn't really a complete sentence. And leads to the confusion about whether that should be "a symmetric" or "asymmetric".

How about we just cut the sentence short and say ...is not suggested for use. or generally should not be used. - because there's really very few cases where you should be using ECB at all, regardless of whether you're trying to do symmetric or some kind of weird asymmetric version of it?

@Bankde
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bankde commented Jul 12, 2024

@rbsec thank you for the review. I agree with the better change.

@kingthorin kingthorin added revise Needs quality review, updates, or revision and removed invalid labels Jul 12, 2024
@kingthorin
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you both!

@kingthorin kingthorin merged commit 175b709 into OWASP:master Jul 12, 2024
3 checks passed
@rbsec
Copy link
Collaborator

rbsec commented Jul 12, 2024

There's definitely a crypto-related version of the four candles/fork handles sketch to be made out of this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
revise Needs quality review, updates, or revision
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants