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

OTP systems (such as HOTP and TOTP) generate a sequence of passwords using a shared secret and a moving factor (counter or time). The critical secret that underpins the ability to compute past or future OTP values is the seed (also called the shared secret key). In HOTP, the seed is used with an HMAC function and an incrementing counter; in TOTP, the seed is used with HMAC and a time-step value. If an attacker obtains the seed and knows the algorithm and moving factor, they can compute future OTPs. The “function” and “encryption algorithm” are typically standardized and public; security relies on keeping the seed secret. An initialization vector is not a standard OTP component in HOTP/TOTP generation. Therefore, the component needed to predict future OTP values is the seed. Protecting the seed is essential: it should be stored securely (e.g., hardware token secure storage) and transmitted only through controlled provisioning processes. If compromised, OTP becomes predictable and no longer serves as a strong second factor.

OCSP is the primary online alternative to CRLs for checking whether a certificate has been revoked.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

Digital signatures provide integrity, authenticity, and typically non-repudiation by using an asymmetric key pair. The signer uses the private key to create a signature over a message (usually over a hash/digest of the message). Because the private key is kept secret, only the legitimate signer should be able to produce a valid signature. Anyone who has the corresponding public key can then validate the signature: they verify that the signature matches the message digest under the public key and that the signed data has not been altered. This is why the public key can be widely distributed (often inside an X.509 certificate) while the private key must be protected by the signer. If a public key were used to sign, anyone could forge signatures; if a private key were required for validation, only the signer could validate, defeating the purpose of public verifiability. Therefore, the correct key roles are private key for signing and public key for signature validation.

Asymmetric encryption (also called public key cryptography) uses a pair of mathematically related keys: a public key and a private key. One key is used to encrypt, and the other is used to decrypt, which is the defining “different keys” property asked in the question. In the common confidentiality use case, a sender encrypts a message using the recipient’s public key, and only the recipient can decrypt it using their private key. This solves the key distribution problem inherent in symmetric encryption, where both parties must securely share the same secret key in advance. Asymmetric systems also enable digital signatures: the private key signs (creates a signature) and the public key verifies it, providing authenticity and integrity. Symmetric encryption, by contrast, uses the same shared key for both encryption and decryption (even though internal round keys may exist, it is still one shared secret). “Private key” alone is not a full encryption type, and “secure” is a generic description rather than a cryptographic category. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Asymmetric.

3DES (Triple DES) applies the DES block cipher three times to increase effective security, and its commonly cited valid key sizes correspond to how many independent DES keys are used. Two-key 3DES uses two 56-bit DES keys (K1 and K2) in an EDE sequence (Encrypt with K1, Decrypt with K2, Encrypt with K1), yielding 112 bits of keying material (ignoring parity bits). Three-key 3DES uses three independent 56-bit keys for a total of 168 bits of keying material, but that option is not listed here. A 56-bit key corresponds to single DES, not 3DES. 128-bit is associated with AES, not 3DES. 2,048-bit is typical for RSA keys, not symmetric ciphers. Therefore, among the choices provided, 112-bit is a valid 3DES key size. While 3DES is now deprecated for many uses due to its 64-bit block size and performance limitations, understanding its keying options remains important for legacy system assessment.

Bitcoin’s proof of work (PoW) is designed so that finding a valid block is computationally difficult, but checking validity is computationally easy. Miners must repeatedly hash candidate block headers (double SHA-256) with different nonces until they find a hash value below a network-defined target. This trial-and-error search requires significant work and energy because the probability of success per attempt is extremely low at current difficulty levels. However, verification is straightforward: any node can hash the block header once (or a small number of times) and confirm the resulting hash meets the target threshold and that the block contents follow protocol rules. This “hard to produce, easy to verify” property is essential: it makes it expensive for attackers to rewrite history or outpace honest miners, while allowing all participants—even low-power devices—to validate blocks efficiently. Therefore, the primary characteristic of Bitcoin proof of work is that it is difficult to produce and easy to verify.

Bitcoin’s supply is controlled by protocol rules enforced by consensus: new bitcoins enter circulation through the block subsidy awarded to miners for producing valid blocks. This subsidy is programmed to halve at fixed intervals (every 210,000 blocks), which steadily reduces the rate of new coin creation over time and asymptotically approaches a capped total supply (commonly cited as 21 million BTC). This mechanism is often called the halving schedule and is the primary way limits are managed. The number of participants is not fixed; anyone can run a node or mine. There is no per-country cap and no per-person maximum enforced by the protocol—addresses and ownership are not limited that way. The supply cap emerges from the decreasing issuance schedule combined with consensus validation rules that reject blocks creating coins beyond what the schedule allows. Therefore, the correct answer is that limits are managed because rewards for mining reduce over time.

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.