WGU Introduction-to-Cryptography - WGU Introduction to Cryptography HNO1

AES supports three standardized key sizes: 128, 192, and 256 bits, with a fixed block size of 128 bits. The maximum of these supported key sizes is 256 bits (AES-256). Key size affects resistance to brute-force key search: larger keys exponentially increase the search space. In practice, AES-128 is already considered strong against brute force with contemporary computing capabilities, while AES-256 is often chosen for compliance requirements, conservative security margins, or to hedge against future advances. AES-512 is not part of the AES standard; if 512-bit keys are desired, systems typically use different constructions (like using AES-256 in certain key-derivation or wrapping schemes) rather than changing AES itself. Therefore, the correct maximum supported AES key size is 256 bits.

WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) uses the RC4 stream cipher and combines a per-packet Initialization Vector (IV) with a shared secret key to form the RC4 seed for that packet’s keystream. The IV in WEP is 24 bits long and is transmitted in the clear as part of the 802.11 frame so the receiver can reconstruct the same per-packet RC4 key stream. The short IV space (2²⁴ possible values) is a major design weakness: on a busy network, IVs repeat frequently, causing keystream reuse. Because RC4 is a stream cipher, keystream reuse enables attackers to derive relationships between plaintexts and recover keys with statistical attacks (notably the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir (FMS) family of attacks and related improvements). WEP also uses a CRC-32 integrity check (ICV) that is not cryptographically strong and is vulnerable to modification attacks. The 24-bit IV length is therefore a key reason WEP is considered insecure and has been replaced by WPA/WPA2 mechanisms that use stronger key mixing, larger nonces/IVs, and robust integrity protection.

OCSP is the primary online alternative to CRLs for checking whether a certificate has been revoked.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.

The expression 23 mod 6 asks for the remainder when 23 is divided by 6. Modular arithmetic is foundational in cryptography, especially in public-key systems (RSA, Diffie–Hellman, ECC) where operations occur in finite rings or fields. To compute 23 mod 6, identify the largest multiple of 6 that does not exceed 23. Multiples of 6 are 6, 12, 18, 24. Since 24 is greater than 23, the largest valid multiple is 18. Subtract: 23 − 18 = 5, so the remainder is 5. Therefore, 23 mod 6 = 5, which corresponds to option “05.” Modular reduction keeps numbers within a fixed range (0 to modulus−1), enabling stable arithmetic under wraparound behavior. In cryptographic protocols, this wraparound property is essential for defining groups and ensuring operations remain bounded and consistent.

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.

In a public key infrastructure, trust in a certificate ultimately depends on the relying party’s trust anchor set—typically the root CA certificates preinstalled in a customer’s browser/OS trust store. For customers to accept the company’s certificate as legitimate, the buyer (customer) must trust the root CA public key (or an intermediate chained to it) so they can validate the certificate chain and signatures. The seller (the company) also must trust and rely on the root CA public key to build and present a valid chain and to make operational decisions based on that CA’s issuance and revocation mechanisms; practically, the seller selects a CA whose root is widely trusted by customers. The cloud provider’s trust is not what makes the certificate valid to customers; the provider may terminate TLS or pass traffic through, but customer validation is based on the chain to a trusted root. Government agencies like the FTC are not part of the cryptographic trust path for TLS certificate validation. Therefore, among the given options, the correct pairing is the seller and the buyer, reflecting both the issuer selection/usage by the company and the relying-party validation by customers.

With IPsec ESP in transport mode, the payload of the original IP packet (typically the transport-layer segment and higher) is encrypted and integrity-protected between the two endpoints—here, the corporate server and the remote client. Because encryption is applied by the sending endpoint and removed only by the receiving endpoint, intermediate routers, switches, and monitoring devices in either network cannot view the protected payload while it is in transit. They may see outer IP headers and certain metadata needed for routing, but not the encrypted content protected by ESP. As a result, the packet’s contents are inspectable only at the endpoints: before encryption on the sender (plaintext exists in memory/stack before IPsec processing) and after decryption on the receiver (plaintext is restored for the application). This is true whether the traffic traverses internal networks or the Internet; the cryptographic boundary is between the endpoints participating in the IPsec SA. Therefore, inspection of the actual content is possible only on the devices at headquarters and offsite, before sending and after receiving, not by in-transit networks.

3DES (Triple DES) commonly uses an Encrypt–Decrypt–Encrypt (EDE) sequence. In the two-key form, it encrypts with key K1, decrypts with key K2, then encrypts again with K1. In the three-key form, it encrypts with K1, decrypts with K2, then encrypts with K3. The EDE construction was chosen partly for backward compatibility: if K1=K2=K3, the scheme reduces to single DES, allowing older systems to interoperate in constrained ways. AES and IDEA do not use an EDE triple-stage process as their defining structure; they are single-pass block ciphers with internal rounds. DES is a single-pass algorithm (one key) rather than a triple application with multiple keys. Therefore, the algorithm described—encrypt with one key, decrypt with another, encrypt with the first—is 3DES. Although now considered legacy, it remains a classic example of increasing effective security by applying a block cipher multiple times with independent keys.

Lightweight cryptography is designed for constrained environments—devices with limited CPU, memory, storage, bandwidth, and power (battery). Examples include IoT sensors, smart locks, RFID tags, embedded controllers, and industrial devices. Administrators choose lightweight algorithms and protocols to maintain reasonable security while fitting strict resource budgets and real-time constraints. The goal is not “weaker security because data is unimportant,” but rather efficient security that can still meet threat models under constraints. Option B captures this: embedded systems often cannot afford the computational cost of heavy cryptographic primitives (large key sizes, complex modes, frequent handshakes) or may struggle with latency and energy consumption. Option A is irrelevant because physical security of a desktop doesn’t remove the need for cryptography in communications or storage. Option C is the opposite of lightweight design. Option D is a poor justification; security design should be based on risk, and lightweight cryptography is not merely for “minimal protection,” but for practical deployability under constraints. Therefore, the correct reason is limited resources on embedded systems.