Pass the WGU Courses and Certificates Introduction-to-Cryptography Questions and answers with CertsForce

Nonrepudiation aims to prevent a party from later denying having performed an action, such as sending a message, approving a transaction, or signing a document. In cryptographic systems, nonrepudiation is typically supported by digital signatures, audit logs, and trusted time-stamping: if a message is signed with a private key and verified with the corresponding public key (often bound to an identity via a certificate), the signer can be held accountable for that signed content. This creates evidence that can be used for dispute resolution, compliance, and legal or contractual enforcement. Nonrepudiation is distinct from confidentiality (keeping data secret) and from access control (preventing unauthorized use). While authentication (verifying identity) is related and often a prerequisite, the defining goal is accountability—ensuring that actions can be attributed to entities in a way that is difficult to dispute later. Effective nonrepudiation also depends on secure private key management, certificate validation, and procedures that show the key was under the signer’s control at the time. Therefore, the correct answer is holding parties accountable for their actions and transactions.

WPA with TKIP was designed as an interim improvement over WEP while still using the RC4 stream cipher for compatibility with legacy hardware. TKIP addresses WEP’s major weaknesses by introducing per-packet key mixing, a message integrity mechanism (“Michael”), and replay protection. In TKIP, the encryption key used with RC4 is 128 bits. Practically, TKIP derives a per-packet RC4 key from a 128-bit temporal key (TK), the transmitter’s MAC address, and a sequence counter (TKIP Sequence Counter, TSC) to avoid the simple IV reuse patterns that made WEP easy to break. Even with these improvements, TKIP has known weaknesses and is deprecated in favor of WPA2/WPA3 using AES-based CCMP/GCMP. But strictly for the question asked, TKIP’s RC4 keying material is based on a 128-bit key size, not 40/56-bit legacy sizes and not 256-bit.

Ethical concerns about encryption commonly arise from the tension between individual privacy/security and societal needs such as law enforcement, national security, and public safety. Strong end-to-end encryption can prevent unauthorized parties from accessing data, including criminals and foreign adversaries, but it can also limit legitimate government access to communications and evidence—even with warrants—because providers may not possess the keys needed to decrypt. This has fueled debates around “going dark,” lawful access, and proposals for exceptional access mechanisms or backdoors. Critics argue that weakening encryption for access would create systemic risk, since any intentional vulnerability can be exploited by malicious actors, while proponents emphasize investigative needs in serious cases. Regardless of the stance, the primary ethical concern reflected in policy debates is that encryption complicates government access to information that may be crucial for preventing or investigating crime. The other options do not capture the main ethical controversy: encryption is widely beneficial beyond corporations, and it is not primarily about speed or storage reduction. Therefore, the correct answer is B.

NIST’s lightweight cryptography effort targets environments like IoT and embedded systems where CPU, memory, energy, and bandwidth are constrained, yet strong security is still required. Ascon is an authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD) family designed to be efficient in both hardware and software with small footprint, making it well-suited for constrained devices. NIST selected Ascon because it offers a strong security design with good performance and implementability under tight resource budgets, while providing modern protections (confidentiality + integrity) through AEAD. That aligns with option C: secure and efficient encryption for resource-constrained devices. The selection was not primarily about authenticating users (that is typically handled by protocols and identity systems, not an AEAD primitive). It was also not mainly about legacy compatibility; lightweight cryptography aims at new and constrained deployments rather than preserving outdated stacks. And while Ascon can certainly be used to protect data at rest, that is only one application; the core reason for the choice is its suitability for constrained environments and robust, efficient authenticated encryption.

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 t o find any collision 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 ca n 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 ag ainst 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.

A brute-force attack exhaustively tries every possible key or password candidate until the correct one is found. Because it explores the full search space (or a very large portion of it), brute force is often the slowest method, especially when strong keys, long passwords, rate limits, and slow password hashing (bcrypt/Argon2) are used. By contrast, a dictionary attack reduces work by trying only common or likely passwords, often succeeding quickly against weak human-chosen secrets. Rainbow table attacks shift work into precomputation; once a table exists, lookup can be faster than brute-force—though salt and modern hashing defeat them. Birthday attacks are about finding collisions, not necessarily recovering a specific secret, and their expected work is about 2^(n/2) for an n-bit hash, which can be less than brute-force key search in many contexts. Therefore, among the listed options, brute-force generally takes the longest to succeed because it makes the fewest assumptions and does the most total work.

In digital forensics, investigators must preserve evidence integrity and demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody. Creating a cryptographic hash (such as SHA-256) of the original drive and then hashing the forensic bitstream image provides a strong mathematical assurance that the copy is an exact, bit-for-bit replica. Because secure hash functions are designed so that any tiny change in data produces a dramatically different digest, matching hashes indicate the image contains identical data to the source at the time of acquisition. This is critical in legal and investigative contexts: analysis is performed on the copy, not the original, to avoid altering evidence. If the hashes match, the investigator can testify that the evidence examined is identical to what was collected, supporting admissibility and credibility. Hashing does not prove who created files, nor does it directly show whether someone “opened the drive”; it specifically validates the integrity and equivalence of the captured image. Therefore, hashing both artifacts is done to verify that the original and the bitstream copy are identical.