Greetings,
* Ryan Lambert (ryan@rustprooflabs.com) wrote:
> > I didn't either, except it was referenced above as "forward hash". I
> > don't know why that was suggested, which is why I listed it as an
> > option/suggestion.
>
> My bad, sorry for the confusion! I meant to say "cipher" not "hash". I
> was (trying to) refer to the method of generating unpredictable IV from
> nonces using the forward cipher function and the encryption key.
> Too many closely related words with very specific meanings.
No worries, just want to try and be clear on these things.. Too easy to
mistakenly think that doing this very-similar-thing will be as secure as
doing the recommended-thing (particularly when the recommended-thing is
a lot harder...), and we don't want to end up doing that and then
discovering it isn't actually secure..
Thanks!
Stephen
