Introduction-to-Cryptography Exam Dumps - WGU Introduction to Cryptography HNO1

CBC mode introduces dependency between blocks to prevent the pattern leakage seen in ECB. It starts with a random (or unpredictable) IV for the first block. Before encrypting block 1, CBC XORs plaintext block 1 with the IV, then encrypts the result. For block 2 and onward, CBC XORs each plaintext block with the previous ciphertext block before encryption. This chaining means that changing one plaintext block affects that block’s ciphertext and also influences the next block’s computation. The IV ensures that encrypting the same message twice under the same key produces different ciphertexts (assuming a fresh IV). Option A (ECB) has no IV or chaining. OFB and CFB are feedback modes that effectively generate a keystream; they do use an IV, but the “uses the result to encrypt the next block” wording most directly matches CBC’s ciphertext-chaining description in standard teaching. CBC still requires integrity protection (e.g., HMAC or an AEAD mode) because it can be malleable without authentication. Therefore, the correct mode is Cipher Block Chaining (CBC).

OCSP is the primary online alternative to CRLs for checking whether a certificate has been revoked. With a CRL, a relying party periodically downloads a list of revoked certificate serial numbers published by the issuing CA (or CRL distribution point). That approach can be bandwidth-heavy, introduces latency between revocation and client awareness, and can result in clients using stale revocation data if updates are infrequent. OCSP improves this by allowing a client (or a server on the client’s behalf) to query an OCSP responder in near real time about the status of a specific certificate (good, revoked, or unknown). In practice, many TLS deployments use OCSP stapling, where the server periodically fetches a signed OCSP response from the CA’s responder and “staples” it to the TLS handshake, reducing client-side network calls and improving privacy (the CA doesn’t learn which site the client is visiting). Thus, OCSP provides a more timely, certificate-specific revocation status mechanism than CRLs while preserving the CA’s signed assurance.

One-way client authentication is the method where the client (customer) proves its identity to the server (web service). In cryptographic terms, this is commonly implemented through client credentials such as client TLS certificates (mTLS from the server’s perspective) or through authentication protocols layered over TLS (for example, signed tokens), but the defining direction is that the client is the party being authenticated. In a strict TLS certificate-authentication framing, client authentication occurs when the server requests a client certificate during the handshake and the client demonstrates possession of the corresponding private key (via signature in handshake messages). The server then validates the client certificate chain and authorization policy. One-way server authentication, by contrast, authenticates only the server to the client and does not identify the customer. Mutual authentication authenticates both sides simultaneously; while it includes client authentication, it is broader than what the question asks. “End-to-end authentication” describes assurance between endpoints across intermediaries, but it is not the specific “customer authenticates to service” method in certificate-based terminology. Therefore, the best answer is one-way client authentication.

A birthday attack targets hash functions by exploiting the birthday paradox: collisions (two different inputs producing the same hash output) can be found much faster than brute-forcing a specific preimage. For an n-bit hash, the expected work to findanycollision is on the order of 2^(n/2), not 2^n. The attack is relevant because many security constructions rely on collision resistance—digital signatures, certificate fingerprints, integrity checks, and some commitment schemes. If an attacker can generate two different documents with the same hash, they may trick a signer into signing one version while later presenting the other as “signed,” depending on the protocol. Linear cryptanalysis and differential cryptanalysis are primarily techniques against block ciphers, analyzing relationships between plaintext/ciphertext differences or linear approximations across rounds. Algebraic attacks treat the cipher as a system of equations. The description “looking for different inputs that generate the same hash” is the hallmark of collision-finding, and the classic framing for that is the birthday attack.

In classic WEP deployments, RC4 was used with what is commonly called “40-bit WEP” (also labeled “64-bit WEP” because it combines a 40-bit secret key with a 24-bit IV to form a 64-bit RC4 seed). The key attribute emphasized in many foundational descriptions of WEP is this 40-bit shared secret length, which was originally chosen due to export restrictions and legacy constraints. Although “104-bit WEP” (sometimes called “128-bit WEP,” again counting the 24-bit IV) also existed, the option set here points to the historically standard and widely referenced attribute: a 40-bit key when RC4 is used in WEP. Importantly, WEP’s security failure is not only about key size; the 24-bit IV is too small and repeats frequently, and WEP’s key scheduling vulnerabilities combined with IV reuse allow attackers to recover the secret key with enough captured frames. Still, among the given options, the correct attribute is the 40-bit key.