Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 179381
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T14:23:49+00:00 2026-05-11T14:23:49+00:00

I am asking from a more secure perspective. I can imagine a scenario with

  • 0

I am asking from a ‘more secure’ perspective. I can imagine a scenario with two required private keys needed for decryption scenarios that may make this an attractive model. I believe it is not adding any additional security other than having to compromise two different private keys. I think that if it was any more secure than encrypting it one million times would be the best way to secure information.

Update a couple of years later: As Rasmus Faber points out 3DES encryption was added to extend the life of DES encryption which had widespread adoption. Encrypting twice using the same key suffers from the Meet in the Middle Attack while encrypting a third time does in fact offer greater security

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T14:23:50+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 2:23 pm

    I understand that it is more secure provided you use different keys. But don’t take my word for it. I’m not a crypto-analyst. I don’t even play one on TV.

    The reason I understand it to be more secure is that you’re using extra information for encoding (both multiple keys and an unknown number of keys (unless you publish the fact that there’s two)).

    Double encryption using the same key makes many codes easier to crack. I’ve heard this for some codes but I know it to be true for ROT13 🙂

    I think the security scheme used by Kerberos is a better one than simple double encryption.

    They actually have one master key whose sole purpose is to encrypt the session key and that’s all the master key is used for. The session key is what’s used to encrypt the real traffic and it has a limited lifetime. This has two advantages.

    • Evil dudes don’t have time to crack the session key since, by the time they’ve managed to do it, those session keys are no longer in use.
    • Those same evil dudes don’t get an opportunity to crack the master key simply because it’s so rarely used (they would need a great many encrypted packets to crack the key).

    But, as I said, take that with a big grain of salt. I don’t work for the NSA. But then I’d have to tell you that even if I did work for the NSA. Oh, no, you won’t crack me that easily, my pretty.

    Semi-useful snippet: Kerberos (or Cerberus, depending on your lineage) is the mythological three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell, a well-chosen mascot for that security protocol. That same dog is called Fluffy in the Harry Potter world (I once had a girlfriend whose massive German Shepherd dog was called Sugar, a similarly misnamed beast).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I am asking this question from an educational/hacking point of view, (I wouldn't really
I'm asking this question purely from a usability standpoint ! Should a website expand/stretch
After asking organising my Python project and then calling from a parent file in
I think im asking for the right type of report from Quickreport. What we
Yesterday I got a call from a Microsoft representative asking if we supply hosted
I apologize for asking such a generalized question, but it's something that can prove
This is more of a question about best pattern and practice than asking about
I am asking this question again but hopefully being a little more clearer. See
When asking about common undefined behavior in C , people sometimes refer to the
After asking this question I was advised not to check in binaries into subversion.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.