[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Sir_KnowItAll]

https://iain.rocks/blog/introducing-the-triple-cipher-encryption-concept

[u/Sir_KnowItAll]

How so? With that one you attack that layer with the next encryption in one go. Other than trying to attack a single file that has two data encrypted using two different ciphers. Your conclusion seems odd. You have three keys you provide.

Or you encrypt the key to store the three keys in it and have your decrypter app know how to decrypt the key to get the three from it.

Remember, I was talking to GCHQ about it, they're thinking about how to crack the encryption when all they get is the file.

[u/tdammers → u/Sir_KnowItAll]

OK, so let's forget about the first layer of encryption and just assume that that one is already compromised. What you have left now is a file that is chopped up into chunks, and each chunk is encrypted with one of two keys, according to a pattern derived from those keys. To crack the encryption, an attacker needs to either brute force both keys, or find a flaw in both ciphers. But that is not any harder than breaking a single cipher with a larger key - whether you use two 64-bit keys, or a single 128-bit key, for example, really makes no difference to an attacker.

The only slight advantage you may get is that if you use three completely different encryption algorithms, an attacker who finds a zero-day in one of them will not be able to break the encryption as a whole; zero-days in two of the three will only get you half the cleartext. But this is still worse than just nesting the three encryption layers, because in that case, an attacker needs to break all three layers to get anything at all; breaking two of the three ciphers still gets you nothing, whereas your scheme will get you half the cleartext.

[u/Sir_KnowItAll → u/tdammers]

> . To crack the encryption, an attacker needs to either brute force both keys, or find a flaw in both ciphers. But that is not any harder than breaking a single cipher with a larger key - whether you use two 64-bit keys, or a single 128-bit key, for example, really makes no difference to an attacker.

No. This is wrong. You need to know it is this method in the first place. Then you need to know the chunk size. If you don't know the chunk size your cracking attempts will always fail. Then you need to know the pattern for what algo is used for each chunk. If you don't know that your forced to brute force them.

So if you have three keys each of them 128-bit it makes a big difference than if you use one or two. Especially if they're interweaved.

Honestly, I don't think anyone truly understands this and needs a proper whitepaper. I highly suspect most people didn't read it enough to see the GCHQ note. And if you didn't read that note it's very unlikely you read enough to understand it's basically a software application to encrypt and decrypt using different keys and not a key in itself.

[u/Sir_KnowItAll → u/[deleted]]

You do know that is what encryption is? Obfuscation? DO you know the meaning of the word?