ibeers wrote: » Hi there, I noticed that you added the ECES cert to your list of credential since your original post. I was curious how you found the content of the test, and if you felt any study materials were more helpful than others. I had purchased this voucher along with the CHFI which I just passed in hope to prep my cryptography skills for the CISSP which will be next. Any feedback would be sincerely appreciated. Best regards, -Ian
<intro, which I will skip> I have read the course material cover to cover and I am rather shocked by the errors that appear in the book. I don't mean typos or unclear explanations, I mean false information, which will confuse readers not versed in the field of cryptography. To give you a couple of examples: (1) Module 03, page 147, regarding the birthday paradox: "If you have an encryption algorithm with a key space of 32 bits, you can generate sqrt(4,294,967,295) random keys or 65,535 keys and have a high chance of one of them being the right key." No, you only have a high chance of equal keys in this set of 65,535 keys. When you think about it, it also doesn't make sense. It would mean that AES-128 would have roughly the same strength as DES?! The author confuses probabilities involved in finding collisions for hash functions versus the probabilities involved in a brute-force key search, which is a serious flaw. (2) Module 03, page 152, regarding the Lehmer PRNG: "This PRNG is of a class of PRNGs referred to as twisted generalized feedback shift registers". No it is not. It's a subset of the linear congruential generators. (3) Module 03, page 154, regarding the Lagged Fibonacci Generator (LFG): "The basic formula is: y = x^k + x^j + 1". No. The formula provided is related to the maximum period of an LFG generator. The LFG formula looks completely different. (4) Module 03, page 154, regarding the multiplicative LFG: it looks like "y = x^k * x^j + 1". No. The MLFG looks nothing like this. (5) Module 04, page 234, regarding common cryptographic mistakes: "Using a standard modulus in RSA (modulus e = 2^16 + 1) ... This small modulus makes cryptanalysis easier." First of all, "2^16 + 1" is not the modulus in RSA. The modulus is the result of the multiplication of the two primes. He is talking about the public key exponent. Second, the public key exponent of 2^16 + 1 is not small. It's actually the default value. <I'll stop here, you get the idea>
<into deleted> In my previous message I provided you with errors related to the mathematical constructs underlying the many cryptographic algorithms, hinting that the author didn’t properly grasp the core concepts. Unfortunately the problem is not contained to the mathematics. Take e.g. the theory of the Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP). Multiple errors appear on only two pages: (1) Module 4, page 222, regarding the use of PTTP: “It adds the features of encrypting packets and authenticating users to the older PPP protocol.” Not true. Those features were already present. Encryption was already possible using the Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) as described in RFC1968 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1968 ). Authentication was already taken care of through the Password Authentication Protocol (PAP) and Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) alternatives. Both of them are covered in RFC1334 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1334), dated ‘1992’. (2) Module 4, page 223, regarding the types of authentication protocols: “PPTP offers two different methods of authenticating the user: Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) and Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP).” The author forgets to mention PAP, so there are (at least) three. (3) Module 4, page 223, regarding MPPE: “MPPE is actually a version of DES.” No, it is not. From the RFC3078 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3078): “MPPE uses the RSA RC4 [3] algorithm to provide data confidentiality.” RC4 is something completely different than DES. Maybe the author confuses MPPE as used in PPTP with DES-E as used in PPP and described in RFC1969 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1969). Regardless, it’s a serious flaw. <cut>
dragonsden said: Yep stay far far away from EC-Council and especially this cert. What a waster of time and money!