| > Practically speaking, even a basic CRC of metadata and file contents would make most attacks impractical. If I recall correctly, CRC of plaintext-then-encrypt scheme have been defeated in the past. With practical attacks. --- > Which you could do with AES-GCM of course, by storing the tag separately. I currently know of no implementations that do so however, but I'm sure there are ones out there. It would require storing the tag per block, which doesn't sound fun or performant. Here’s an example from possibly the most famous modern cryptographic library: https://doc.libsodium.org/secret-key_cryptography/aead/aes-2... As for storing the tag "per block", I’m not sure what you mean. Sure you need one tag per block, but with the above API you can store that tag anywhere you want. If for instance you pack them into dedicated blocks, a single 4KiB blocks can store 256 authentication tags. The loss of storage capacity would be a whooping 0.4%. > When I am referring to authenticating in a way that doesn't make individual blocks bigger, I'm referring to a HMAC signature in filesystem metadata or similar in this type of scenario. Out of band information Then just store the authentication tag from AES-GCM out of band!! Surely your meta-data can handle a 0.4% size overhead? --- > To answer your second question in that context - everything from SSL to PGP/GPG, S/MIME, etc. Thought so. They’re all just like AES-GCM. One of them (TLS 1.3, a.k.a. SSL) can even use AES-GCM for its symmetric crypto. |
I tried to read your pointer, but the link goes no where explaining it. Mind giving a more useful link? It Could be because I’m on mobile.
We weren’t talking about CRC of plaintext anyway - we were talking about block encryption. So it would be CRC (as validation) of on-disk filesystem structures as part of parsing. Aka an actual attack.
Standard AES-GCM appends the tag to the encrypted message directly. None of those I name do it that way. Using AES-GCM as a transport is layering their stuff inside it, which of course is fine as I’m describing it - because they don’t have fixed size structures in their protocols! It doesn’t mean they aren’t doing the additional validation and authentication.