Cryptography / Encryption Discussion

Would this possibly be a new method?
Ex. Both parties share keys , You the user and the site.
Wouldn't it be smarter for the key algorithm to be changed every hour from a list of prepicked algorithms, therfore it was almost random and if the attacker worked out how to 'break' a key then all hope wouldn't be lost?

>>61779378
>new
No not really, other things have used such in the past.

>>61779378
No in-use algorithms have been broken. If they were broken, we wouldn't use them.

>>61779390
Let's say a single one was broken into , Then the site always has a bunch of backups.

>>61779378
You just described Netflix DRM

>>61779402
Interesting, I didn't know that's how they did it, where did you find the info though?

>>61779400
In a chain of trust system, where your client trusts companies like VeriSign and Comodo: Then the site owner would contact its Certificate Authority (CA), revoke the compromised certificate, generate a new certificate, get the CA to sign it, and immediately start using the new certificate.

>>61779422
Can't remember actually. It was probably a Defective by Design article or on RMS's website.

>>61779428
I'm sure it'll be faster if the company could do something like that themselves just by removing that algorithm from the list instead of having to go through CA

Does anyone have a list of frequency tables?

>>61779505
Isn't it easy enough just to google and find though anon..?

File: 1502092185444.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>61779568
>Using google