You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We want to symmetrically encrypt certain data to a key that's provided by the model object. Particularly, we're encrypting it to a secret answer known only to the user. We'd like to encrypt it without the asymmetric encryption - looks pretty easy to adjust in Strongbox::Lock. Would you entertain a patch for that?
For background, we're going to encrypt the secret answer using the normal method, and in the security perimeter we'll be able to then conduct operations that require the decrypted answer - like encrypting new bits of data using it as a symmetric key. Then, at times when the user chooses to enter their secret answer, we can provide some limited decryption for that user's need, while preventing mass exposure of decryptable content to an attacker.
Thoughts?
Randy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
P.s. I'm contemplating an option :key_proc => :symbol or Proc.new do { |instance| ... } to fetch the symmetric key used to encrypt the data. In the example, that routine would return either an instance variable (set by the controller from the user's manual input) or the decrypted secret answer (if the code is running inside the security perimeter).
Hi again,
We want to symmetrically encrypt certain data to a key that's provided by the model object. Particularly, we're encrypting it to a secret answer known only to the user. We'd like to encrypt it without the asymmetric encryption - looks pretty easy to adjust in Strongbox::Lock. Would you entertain a patch for that?
For background, we're going to encrypt the secret answer using the normal method, and in the security perimeter we'll be able to then conduct operations that require the decrypted answer - like encrypting new bits of data using it as a symmetric key. Then, at times when the user chooses to enter their secret answer, we can provide some limited decryption for that user's need, while preventing mass exposure of decryptable content to an attacker.
Thoughts?
Randy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: