Scenario: Your company has many encrypted telecommunications links for their world-wide operations. Physically distributing symmetric keys to all locations has proven to be administratively…

Question

Options

• AUse asymmetric encryption for the automated distribution of the symmetric key
• BUse a self-generated key on both ends to eliminate the need for distribution
• CUse certificate authority to distribute private keys
• DSymmetrically encrypt the key and then use asymmetric encryption to unencrypt it

• A
  81% (25)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  13% (4)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option A is correct because asymmetric encryption (e.g., RSA) provides a secure channel to transmit symmetric keys electronically - the sender encrypts the symmetric key with the recipient's public key, and only the recipient can decrypt it with their private private key, eliminating the need for physical distribution while keeping the preferred symmetric keys in use for actual data encryption.

Why the others are wrong:

• B is wrong because independently self-generated keys on each end would produce different keys, making encrypted communication impossible - two parties can't communicate if they each have a unique, unshared key.
• C is wrong because Certificate Authorities distribute public key certificates, never private keys - distributing private keys would fundamentally break PKI security, as private keys must never leave their owner.
• D is wrong and backwards - symmetrically encrypting a key and then using asymmetric encryption to decrypt it is incoherent; you can't use asymmetric to decrypt something that was symmetrically encrypted. The correct flow is the reverse: use asymmetric to wrap the symmetric key.

Memory tip: Think of this as a lockbox analogy - asymmetric encryption is the lockbox (public key locks it, private key opens it) used to deliver the symmetric key securely. This is exactly how TLS handshakes work, so if you remember HTTPS, you remember Option A.

No community discussion yet for this question.