Talk:Cryptographic key

TODO

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)

Against re-keying

Interesting article at http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2010/03/against_rekeying.html It is provoking much discussion on the crypto mailing list. Sandy Harris 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)