Which of the follow...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Which of the following is generally true about key sizes?

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Likes
150 Views
(@ripaharris)
Posts: 737
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Which of the following is generally true about key sizes?

  • A . Larger key sizes increase security
    B. Key size is irrelevant to security
    C. Key sizes must be more than 256 bits to be secure
    D. Smaller key sizes increase security

Show Answer Hide Answer

Suggested Answer: A

Explanation:

Larger key sizes increase security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size

Key length defines the upper-bound on an algorithm's security (i.e. a logarithmic measure of the fastest known attack against an algorithm), since the security of all algorithms can be violated by brute-force attacks. Ideally, the lower-bound on an algorithm's security is by design equal to the key length (that is, the security is determined entirely by the keylength, or in other words, the algorithm's design doesn't detract from the degree of security inherent in the key length). Indeed, most symmetric-key algorithms are designed to have security equal to their key length. However, after design, a new attack might be discovered. For instance, Triple DES was designed to have a 168 bit key, but an attack of complexity 2112 is now known (i.e. Triple DES now only has 112 bits of security, and of the 168 bits in the key the attack has rendered 56 'ineffective' towards security). Nevertheless, as long as the security (understood as 'the amount of effort it would take to gain access') is sufficient for a particular application, then it doesn't matter if key length and security coincide. This is important for asymmetric-key algorithms, because no such algorithm is known to satisfy this property; elliptic curve cryptography comes the closest with an effective security of roughly half its key length.
 
Posted : 25/10/2022 6:36 pm
Topic Tags

Latest EC-Council 212-81 Dumps Valid Version

Latest And Valid Q&A | Instant Download | Once Fail, Full Refund
Share: