Talk:Cryptographic key

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Value used by a computer together with a complex algorithm to encrypt and decrypt messages. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Mathematics, Computers and Military [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Security
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English


The session key part needs clarification on when keys are transported securely, with symmetric or asymmetric techniques or exchanged as in DH. Mario Strefler 20:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Key-specific as opposed to cryptosystem

Thanks for catching the errors in cryptographic key. I'm not sure, however, that the comment on stream ciphers belongs in an article specifically about keys, unless there were a discussion of stream keying (and perhaps autokey) in its own section.

We may need a survey article, however, about modern cryptosystems in general, and techniques like stream, block, etc., ciphers, as well as OTP, algorithmic approaches such as Feistel, etc., might be better there. What do you think (note copied on user talk page) Howard C. Berkowitz 11:57, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, the comment better to belong to the article about ciphers than keys. Andrey Khalyavin 05:42, 1 August 2008 (CDT)

Duplicate articles?

We currently have both Key (cryptography) and Cryptographic key, with different contents. Combine them under one title and make the other a redirect? Sandy Harris 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then there is Cryptography#Keying. Should its content be moved into a combined article? Or should both the others just be redirects to that? Also, should Brute_force_attack#Choosing_key_sizes be moved into a combined article? It is arguably more about keys than about brute force. Sandy Harris 04:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say just leave both where they are and add links from combined article to them. However, that's one that needs editor input. Sandy Harris 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I need to think about this. Linking seems a good approach for now.
Just a thought -- in some Forum threads and assorted discussions elsewhere, there's been mention of the idea of a "portal" page that helps users (i.e., as distinct from authors) understand the organization of a topic area. That might be extended from the Security Subgroup list. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There's also Key management which has a lot of links to it and I'd say deserves to be a separate article. It is currently a redirect. Sandy Harris 10:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Key management unquestionably deserves its own article. Do you have Smith's Internet Cryptography? While it's getting old, it has some nice discussion on manual key distribution. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I started Key management using text from Cryptography#Keying, most of which was originally written as part of block cipher. Better than nothing, but it needs a lot more. No, I don't have Smith, or much else by way of reference books. Sandy Harris 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also Cryptography#Key_management. I'm leaving that where it is for now, but in the long run some of it should probably be moved. Sandy Harris 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume we will have three Editors for approval, so that I may go ahead and write text? I think so. --Howard C. Berkowitz 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is safe to assume that; my impression is we are quite short of editors. However, I'd say go ahead & write. The article is a very long way from approvable status; we do not need to woory about that yet. Sandy Harris 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Against re-keying

Interesting article at It is provoking much discussion on the crypto mailing list. Sandy Harris 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)