Introduction-to-Cryptography WGU Introduction to Cryptography HNO1 Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

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.

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.

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.

The value 51 mod 11 is the remainder after dividing 51 by 11. Modular arithmetic is widely used in cryptography to keep computations within a finite set of residues, such as in RSA where values are taken modulo n, or in Diffie–Hellman where exponents and group elements are reduced modulo a prime. To compute 51 mod 11, find the largest multiple of 11 less than or equal to 51. Multiples of 11 are 11, 22, 33, 44, 55. The closest without exceeding 51 is 44. Subtracting gives 51 − 44 = 7, so the remainder is 7. Therefore, 51 mod 11 = 7, matching option “07.” This remainder is always in the range 0 through 10 because the modulus is 11. Such residue computations underpin the “wraparound” behavior that makes modular exponentiation and inverse computations well-defined in cryptographic groups.

Symmetric cryptography uses a single shared secret key for both encryption and decryption. This contrasts with asymmetric cryptography, which uses a key pair (public/private). Symmetric algorithms (like AES, ChaCha20) are efficient and well-suited for bulk data encryption, but they require a secure method for key distribution because both parties must possess the same secret. Hashing is not a keyed operation by default (though HMAC is keyed); it maps arbitrary data to a fixed-size digest and is primarily used for integrity checking, fingerprints, and password hashing constructions. Padding is a data formatting technique (e.g., PKCS#7) used to align plaintext to a block size; it is not a cryptographic “operation” that uses a key. Therefore, the cryptographic operation characterized by using one key shared between parties is symmetric encryption. In real systems, symmetric encryption is frequently combined with asymmetric methods for key exchange and with MACs/AEAD for integrity, producing the standard hybrid approach used in protocols like TLS and IPsec.

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.

802.1X is a port-based network access control framework that enables centralized authentication using an authentication server (commonly RADIUS). EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) runs within 802.1X to support many credential types (password-based methods like PEAP, certificate-based methods like EAP-TLS, and others). WPA-Enterprise is the wireless security mode that explicitly uses 802.1X + EAP with an authentication server to perform per-user/per-device authentication and to derive dynamic session keys. By contrast, WPA-PSK uses a pre-shared key without an external authentication server; all users share the same PSK, which is weaker for enterprise identity management. WEP is an older mechanism using static keys and does not provide modern 802.1X/EAP enterprise authentication in the WPA-Enterprise sense. TKIP is an encryption/integrity protocol used under WPA, not the full authentication “standard” involving an authentication server. Therefore, the correct choice is WPA-Enterprise.

AES by itself is a symmetric block cipher that provides confidentiality, but not guaranteed integrity unless used in an authenticated mode. To protect integrity of the plaintext (ensuring it has not been altered), a Message Authentication Code (MAC) can be applied. In the classic Encrypt-then-MAC pattern, the sender encrypts the plaintext with AES and then computes a MAC (often HMAC-SHA-256 or CMAC-AES) over the ciphertext (and relevant headers). The receiver verifies the MAC before attempting decryption, preventing tampering and many padding-oracle style vulnerabilities. Alternatively, AES can be used in an AEAD mode like AES-GCM, which produces an authentication tag serving a similar purpose, but among the listed options the general integrity mechanism is “MAC.” RC4 is an unrelated stream cipher and does not provide integrity. RSA is asymmetric and not the standard integrity add-on for AES-encrypted bulk data. Kerberos is an authentication protocol and key distribution system, not a message integrity primitive. Therefore, to protect plaintext integrity when using AES, the correct mechanism is a Message Authentication Code.

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.

The “Issued” stage in a certificate lifecycle indicates that the certificate has been generated and signed by the issuing CA and is now valid for use (subject to validity dates, policy constraints, and revocation status). At this point, the operational focus shifts from creating the certificate to making it available to the subject and relying parties. “Distribution” is the lifecycle activity most directly associated with an issued certificate: installing it on servers or endpoints, provisioning it into keystores, publishing it to directories if required, and ensuring the chain (intermediates) is accessible for validation. By contrast, “Creation” is earlier in the process (key generation, CSR creation, identity validation, issuance/signing). “Key recovery” and “key archiving” relate to private key management and escrow policies (often for encryption keys, not signing keys), and are governed by organizational policy and key management systems rather than the certificate’s issued state itself. A certificate can be distributed after issuance regardless of whether any key escrow features exist. Therefore, the operation that fits the certificate’s “Issued” stage best is distribution of the issued credential for operational use.

HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code) is a standard mechanism used to verify both integrity and authenticity of a message when two parties share a secret key. It combines a cryptographic hash function (such as SHA-256) with a secret key in a structured way that resists common attacks on naïve keyed-hash constructions. The sender computes an HMAC tag over the message and transmits the message plus tag. The receiver recomputes the HMAC using the same shared secret key and compares the result; if the tag matches, the receiver can be confident the message was not modified in transit and that it came from someone who knows the shared key. AES is an encryption algorithm primarily providing confidentiality; it can provide integrity only when used in authenticated modes (e.g., GCM) but “AES” alone is not the integrity component. An IV helps randomize encryption but does not validate integrity. TKIP is a legacy WLAN protocol component, not the general integrity verifier. Therefore, the correct component for verifying message integrity among the options is HMAC.

SHA-1 (Secure Hash Algorithm 1) produces a fixed-size output of 160 bits (20 bytes). Hash output size matters in cryptography because it influences collision resistance and the effort required for various attacks. For an ideal n-bit hash, finding a collision by generic means is expected around 2^(n/2) operations (birthday bound). With SHA-1’s 160-bit output, that generic bound would be about 2^80, which was once considered strong; however, SHA-1 has been broken in practice with significantly less work due to cryptanalytic advances, and it is now deprecated for most security uses. Still, the question is strictly about output length, not current suitability. The other options do not match SHA-1: 40 bits would be far too small for a modern hash, 80 bits is not SHA-1’s output, and 320 bits would imply a much larger digest (closer to SHA-256’s 256 bits or SHA-384’s 384 bits). Therefore, the correct SHA-1 output length is 160 bits.

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.

For Bitcoin, transactions are confirmed by inclusion in blocks, and the network targets an average block interval of about 10 minutes. That means transactions are “added” to the Bitcoin blockchain approximately every 10 minutes in the sense that a new block containing a batch of transactions is appended at that cadence. The 10-minute target is achieved by a difficulty adjustment mechanism that recalibrates mining difficulty roughly every 2016 blocks, aiming to keep the average interval stable despite changes in total network hash power. It is important to note that this is an average: blocks can be found faster or slower in the short term due to the probabilistic nature of proof-of-work mining. Other blockchains have different block times (seconds to minutes), but the question’s options and typical curriculum context align with Bitcoin’s 10-minute design. Therefore, the correct choice is approximately every 10 minutes.

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.

CTR (Counter) mode converts a block cipher into a stream-like encryption method by generating a keystream from encrypted counter blocks. The core idea is to construct a sequence of input blocks using a nonce (unique per message/session) plus an incrementing counter. Each nonce||counter block is encrypted with the block cipher under the shared key; the output is a pseudorandom block that is XORed with plaintext to produce ciphertext. Decryption repeats the same keystream generation and XORs with ciphertext to recover plaintext. CTR offers practical benefits: it is highly parallelizable, supports precomputation of keystream blocks, and allows random access to any block without needing previous blocks (unlike CBC). ECB and CBC are block modes that do not use nonce+counter keystream generation. CFB is a feedback mode that can behave stream-like, but it does not use the explicit counter/nonce construction characteristic of CTR. CTR’s security hinges on never reusing the same nonce/counter sequence with the same key, because that would reuse the keystream and enable XOR-based plaintext recovery. Therefore, the correct mode is Counter (CTR).

A true random number generator (TRNG) produces outputs derived from nondeterministic physical processes (e.g., thermal noise, oscillator jitter, radioactive decay, or other hardware entropy sources). Because the underlying phenomenon is not algorithmically determined by an input seed in the same way as a PRNG, repeated “inputs” (or identical conditions from a software perspective) do not yield the same sequence; the outputs vary unpredictably. By contrast, a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) is deterministic: given the same seed and internal state, it produces the same output sequence, which is useful for repeatability but means security depends on seed secrecy and proper seeding. “Prime” is not a generator type, and “sequence” is too generic and does not imply nondeterminism. In cryptographic systems, TRNGs (or hardware entropy sources) are often used to seed cryptographically secure PRNGs (CSPRNGs), combining high-quality entropy with efficient generation. Therefore, the generator that can produce different results for the “same input data” is a true random number generator.