|
|
- AES encyption: More secure than SHA1? - IT Answers
For passwords, SHA-1 hash is usually more useful than an encryption Encryption has a direct implication of decryption; one-way hashing does not It's been known to cryptanalists for a few years that SHA-1 is "broken" However, you need to understand their definition of "broken" before discarding a method
- Does the Length of a Password for AES Encryption Make it . . .
Does the Length of a Password for AES Encryption Make it More Secure? 0 A weak password used to generate a 256-bit AES key is far less secure than a strong password used to generate a 128-bit key AES-128 provides more than enough security margin for the (foreseeable) future But if you're already using AES-256, there's no reason to change
- Encrypting passwords by using AES - ibm. com
If an attacker has access to these two files on a server instance, an AES encrypted password is no more secure than an exclusive-OR (XOR) encoded password The exclusive-OR (XOR) encoding is the default encoding for password protection About this task
- encryption - Is AES more secure than Rijndael . . .
AES is a subset of Rijndael ( FIPS-197 ) It's still being considered secure, if you continue reading to the bottom of the article:
- What is AES encryption (with examples) and how does it work?
You could easily have a standard that was exponentially more secure than AES, but it would take too long to encrypt and decrypt to be of any practical use In the end, the Rijndael block cipher was chosen by NIST for its all-around abilities , including its performance on both hardware and software, ease of implementation and its level of security
|
|
|