I need a method to authenticate a process with another in order to establish interprocess communication between them, to prevent malicious processes from trying to hook onto the system. Currently I just send a password in plaintext between the two processes and the host process just performs a string comparison with its copy of the password, and will disconnect the connecting process if they don't match.
Office 15. World's simplest RC4 encryptor. Just paste your text in the form below, enter password, press RC4 Encrypt button, and you get encrypted text. Press button, get RC4.
C media cm106 like sound device drivers for mac. It was fine when I was limited to connecting each process on localhost, but obviously this is not secure if someone just happens to have access to a network between each process and could sniff the packets. Do note that I only care about encryption for the password exchange and I don't really need it to secure the communication. So basically I need a encryption algorithm that doesn't need to protect its contents well but does need to protect its key, and needs to be as fast as possible with minimal RAM usage and I/O overhead. Yes, data exchange is more CPU-bound than I/O bound since the two processes will be doing loads of calculations and they most likely will be connecting through localhost. Now, I came across RC4, which has a throughput of over twice that of AES-128, but it is evident that it has some weaknesses and I have a lot of questions about how to implement it in a secure way.
Well first question - it's in the title. Is RC4 completely broken and should be avoided? I hear a lot of 'it is secure if properly used' and then a lot of 'use of RC4 is discouraged.'
Encryption For Mac And Pc
I was planning to keep the plaintext password on both processes and have them SHA-224 hashed, and concatenate the hash with a 32-bit IV as a 256-bit key for RC4. Are there any security risks with this approach? Perhaps I could then hash the concatenated IV and hashed password with SHA-256? I'm well aware that WEP was cracked because it used a 24-bit IV, but a 32-bit IV has over four billion more unique values. Should I avoid incrementing the IV after each packet like WEP?
²System Configuration: The amount of hard-disk space required can vary if you already have one or more required components installed on your system. ¹Administrator privileges are required to properly install the program on Windows Vista®, Windows® 7, Windows® 8, and Windows® 10. Adjustments to your system configuration and/or updates to the hardware component drivers may be required. Print shop 3 for mac upgrade. Software: Microsoft®.NET Framework v4.0, Browser: Microsoft® Internet Explorer® 6.0 or higher, Windows® compatible printer (monochrome or color), Windows® compatible mouse & keyboard, Internet access: Broadband Internet connection required³.
And when it comes to RC4-drop[n], what is a reasonable value for n? 256, 512, 768 bytes? How would you implement drop n on a library whose only public operation is encrypting a byte array - pass a byte array of length n after the engine is initialized with the key?
Rc4 Encryption Example
Would that mean you would have to basically process n empty bytes after every time you change the IV (which happens after every packet)? Sources: EDIT: after reading all these excellent responses, I realized how ignorant I sounded about the whole subject. I had no experience with cryptography before this day, and I only was able to read about RC4's risks from the limited Google results that I could barely follow. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with me! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a better solution is to either use AES (which is not slower because re-keying RC4 after each packet is expensive) or an universal message authentication code. I can easily work with AES, but my understanding of MAC is a bit shaky. Bravo ii disc publisher drivers for mac. An IV is only secure if the update sequence is randomized and unpredictable, meaning I would have to send a 128 bit IV for every message that is sent, which can add a 400% overhead to the short, 4 byte packets that are commonly sent by my application.