Talk:Passive attack/Draft

There's another category of attack that I'm not sure how to handle. The attacker may not be active in the sense of forging messages etc. but he isn't just a passive listener either. Things like grabbing a password file for offline crack attempts, subjecting a smartcard to heat for differential fault analysis, et cetera. Where do we categorise these? do they need an article on the category? Is there a standard term? Sandy Harris 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "passive-aggressive" comes to mind, but probably isn't standard. Sandy Harris 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While there are individual techniques, I don't think there's a standard term. As you suggest, some are going after side channels, others are looking for key or passwords to get into the primary information flow, etc. No really elegant unifying term comes to mind, but you could probably group the techniques under communications intelligence, although some, if they are based on unintentional radiation (acoustic or electronic), blur into measurement and signature intelligence of different flavors.

If you are trying to identify rather than grab an information flow, the terminology gets even more complex. Using time domain analysis to recognize the "fist" of a specific Morse operator, for example, is radiofrequency MASINT. Now, if unintentional RF or other emissions identify the crypto device, that certainly is a much better cryptanalytic starting point than just having a bit stream. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Known plaintext

When you say "he may read messages he is not supposed to see", does that include known plaintext? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Related disciplines

You mention cryptanalysis in the last paragraph. Should Radiofrequency MASINT and Communications intelligence be mentioned for non-cryptanalytic approaches? Is, for example, TEMPEST a passive attack? (yes, I know TEMPEST is the defense against something else).

I think my second paragraph covers it.

Electronic probing (see Electronic warfare) is another: take some real-world action in order to have the opponent issue predictable messages (e.g., intercept the intruder, turn on the radar). Howard C. Berkowitz 15:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's active. "... probing ... take some action" Sandy Harris 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indirectly active -- passive as far as the communications channel. Should be made distinct. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Approval Process: Call for review

Call for review: Sandy Harris 04:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Call for Approval: Anthony.Sebastian 21:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Approval Notice:

Certification of Approval:

---

Please discuss the article below, Passive attack/Approval is for brief official referee's only!

Comments

Sandy, no Bibliography or External Links. Main Article has no inline citations. It doesn't feel complete. —Anthony.Sebastian 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a short article, basically just defining a term. I think it has everything it needs.

I think there is room for discussion around which articles need bibliographies and link sections. I am convinced not all do.

As for citations, I do not think it needs those either. This is a standard term, familiar to anyone in the field. We need to define it for non-expert readers, but it does not necessarily need a citation. If there is a good one, for example Rivest's definition of Cryptology, that should used. Otherwise, no problem.

Arguably, this article should just be redirect to a section of some broader article, but it is not clear which one. Perhaps Cryptanalysis#The_attacker.27s_objective, but the term passive attack is somewhat broader than just its use in cryptanalysis. Sandy Harris 02:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this: References to standard facts are not needed. In contrast to WP, references are not used to "prove" statements (references may point to incorrect material -- who knows?). Bibliographies should be to the point, and helpful to the reader: In this case the relevant books will be found for cryptology, and similar.

In my view, short independent articles are preferable over redirects to subsections: They make it easier for the reader. Subsections are in context and it will usually be necessary to read the whole article. (Of course, there may be topics that cannot be treated independently.) Moreover, I think that articles should not become too long -- detailed subsections are better transferred to separate pages, keeping only a summary. --Peter Schmitt 20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)