Slashdot Mirror
Easy Encryption In Java and Python With Keyczar
rsk writes "Keyczar is an encryption toolkit born out of the Google Security Team and released under the Apache 2 license. Keyczar's purpose is to make managing encryption of secured data much easier than it has been, with the following features: a simple API; key rotation and versioning; safe default algorithms, modes, and key lengths; automated generation of initialization vectors and ciphertext signatures; Java and Python implementations (C++ coming soon); and international support in Java (Python coming soon). The example on the website is only 2 lines long, and a more fully worked out example is also provided for folks wanting to get started 'for reals.'"
As in Söze???
Well then, I trust this product immediately and fully.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
It's waaaay smaller than Bouncy Castle. The focus of Keyczar seems to be on usability, to the point that it's seems rather black-boxy. Here's an encryption example from their page: Crypter crypter = new Crypter("/path/to/your/keys"); String ciphertext = crypter.encrypt("Secret message"); Notice that it's not at all clear what this does. Is it symmetric or asymmetric encryption? Deterministic or nondeterministic? Authenticated? It's all under the hood. If you don't care to look, you don't have to know. They try to provide safe defaults, but it won't the developer from understanding some basic crypto concepts. Bouncy Castle is a lot more comprehensive and (most likely) mature.
I think this is similar to the programming books that say, "Look how easy it is to create a real C program! Just one line of code!" Yeah, it technically compiles and runs, but it doesn't do much of anything. This is a fairly common problem with crypto libraries in my experience: making things seem simpler than they should be in return for the "wow factor" of two-line examples, like the one provided.
This library seems to be making a big deal about "secure defaults", but I think trying to provide defaults of any kind is a really bad idea. Cryptography is something that should be thought out on a case-by-case basis. Providing defaults of any kind can lead to misuse of otherwise safe algorithms. The safest gun is still dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced person.
-William Brendel
I think you are both wrong. The issue here is not the algorithms but how you combine them to do the right things. This process includes things like generating keys, storing and retrieving them, exchanging them with other parties, etc. This is surprisingly difficult to get right if you are not an expert. Many existing cryptography frameworks provide plenty of room for mistakes to be made. A single configuration error can defeat the whole purpose of using encryption. Doing things on a case by case basis only creates multiple opportunities for doing the wrong thing.
All this framework does is provide a reasonable implementation to support a range of common use cases in a more or less fool proof way. It reduces the amount of decisions that need to be taken by a programmer and that reduces the amount of room for mistakes. In cryptography, default settings are good: you rely on proven algorithmic strength & best practices and not on obscurity. These breaking down is a lot less likely than you making a mistake.
Jilles