| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 45:12:34 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,024 |
| Messages: | 90,304 |
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file.
It's 256 bit encryption.
On 23/03/2025 04:14, hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
A good many years ago when sci.crypt was packed wall to wall with
expert cryptanalysts, I asked pretty much the same question - not
as a challenge (such challenges were frequent, and the experts
wearied of explaining the flawed assumptions inherent in such
challenges) but more as a playful puzzle. Ciphertext-only, that is.
Jim Gillogly is a leading cryptanalyst. If you don't know the
name, you can find out more here: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gillogly>
He stopped posting here when the number of cypherpunks started to
outweigh the experts, but back then he subscribed to sci.crypt,
and he took up the gauntlet I had so gently laid down. It took
him only an hour or two to post my plaintext.
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
Is someone of Jim's calibre cares enough (and there aren't many
of them, but they're still out there) they'll have the plaintext
out in fairly short order, but it's very unlikely that they'll
post the answer here, because what will that be to them?
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
He or she would start by determining what the ciphertext actually
/is/. Are the newlines part of the text or not?
He wouldn't find out by asking you. He would look at the
transmission sent to Bob (the recipient of the message, who can
be expected to decrypt it and thus will be expecting a clean
ciphertext format, such as five-groups, or a file attachment).
Then he would ask Intelligence to get him everything they had on
Alice (the sender) and Bob. While they were doing that, he would
be frequency-analysing the ciphertext and comparing it to the
frequencies of all the languages that Alice and Bob hold in
common. And then he'd tell them to acquire the program used to
encrypt the message. (You say nobody knows, but Alice knows
because she sent the message, and Alice can be brought in for
questioning.)
Kerckhoffs's principle: one must assume that one's enemy has at
their disposal the machine.
If the security of your cryptosystem relies on Eve (the enemy)
never laying hands on the detail of your algorithm, then all your
secrets are at the mercy of the first battle lost, the first
crashed transport plane, the first captured ship, or the first
traitor at your HQ.
Cryptanalysis starts with the algorithm, and the government will
keep pointing guns at people until they get it.
Back in the day, when I presented my puzzle, I made it abundantly
clear that I knew the rules and that I could draw no meaningful
conclusions if sci.crypt couldn't be arsed to crack it. Jim G
took my game in the spirit I intended, and even without the
algorithm he cracked my ciphertext wide open. So security through
obscurity is no security at all.
Finally, bear in mind that the Advanced Encryption Standard is
openly published and widely available. Some of the finest
cryptanalysts in the world have attacked AES, and according to
Snowden the NSA are still going at it hammer and tongs. Experts
don't think they'll succeed. "I do not believe that anyone will
ever discover an attack that will allow someone to read Rijndael
traffic." - Bruce Schneier, ><https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2000/1015.html>
Against that background, an unpublished algorithm doesn't have a
snowball's chance in hell.
On 23/03/2025 04:14, hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
The chance that it could be broken? Not enough information to say with
any accuracy. Might be easy, might be close to impossible. It's long
enough that a huge quantum computer given a very long time to do it
could in theory do it, so it's not totally absolutely impossible.
The chances that someone will actually bother to break it? Close to zero.
No one knows what program made the file.
Alice knows. So does Bob. So do their computers. Their software
suppliers may have hints. Und so weiter.
We usually assume that the program/cipher is known because, if kept
secret, if the secret is revealed once it is revealed for all instances >(Kerckhoff's principle).
It's 256 bit encryption.
But is it _good_ 256-bit encryption? If it's home-grown it isn't good >(Schneier's law).
Then there is always lead pipe cryptanalysis...
https://xkcd.com/538/
Peter F
The chances that someone will actually bother to break it? Close to zero.
(Schneier's law).
To hell with the problem. None of those guys you mentioned give a dang
about what the scattered mess of characters in one of my files mean. As
for anyone in my personal world, they'd look at a PGP message and think
my E-mail program screwed up the message and made it an unreadable mess.
On 23/03/2025 14:50, hal@invalid.com wrote:
To hell with the problem. None of those guys you mentioned give a dang
about what the scattered mess of characters in one of my files mean. As
for anyone in my personal world, they'd look at a PGP message and think
my E-mail program screwed up the message and made it an unreadable mess.
Yes. I'm afraid our best guarantee of security is that nobody
gives a damn about our secrets.
But if you're going to encrypt anyway, use AES.
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
On 24/03/2025 06:21 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near
certainty.
Nonsense. Even the NSA has admitted they can't break
AES-256.
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near
certainty.
On 24/03/2025 11:32, The Running Man wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 24/03/2025 06:21 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be >>>>> broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near
certainty.
Nonsense. Even the NSA has admitted they can't break
AES-256.
(a) What makes you think the above ciphertext is AES-256?
(b) If the NSA cares enough to try, they'll crack it using side
channels (e.g. rubber hose).
(c) In 700-odd bytes of ciphertext, only 65 distinct values
appear, one of them 19 times. AES my arse. This is a home-grown
algorithm, and not a particularly good one. All it'll take is for
someone with enough time to care enough.
On 24/03/2025 12:51 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 24/03/2025 11:32, The Running Man wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:21 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be >>>>>> broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near
certainty.
Nonsense. Even the NSA has admitted they can't break
AES-256.
(a) What makes you think the above ciphertext is AES-256?
(b) If the NSA cares enough to try, they'll crack it using side
channels (e.g. rubber hose).
(c) In 700-odd bytes of ciphertext, only 65 distinct values
appear, one of them 19 times. AES my arse. This is a home-grown
algorithm, and not a particularly good one. All it'll take is for
someone with enough time to care enough.
Homegrown stuff doesn't apply.
Anyone with half a brain
would use vetted ciphers.
Rubber hosing isn't breaking encryption.
On 3/24/2025 7:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 24/03/2025 13:10, The Running Man wrote:
On 24/03/2025 12:51 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 11:32, The Running Man wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:21 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near certainty.
Nonsense. Even the NSA has admitted they can't break
AES-256.
(a) What makes you think the above ciphertext is AES-256?
(b) If the NSA cares enough to try, they'll crack it using side channels (e.g. rubber hose).
(c) In 700-odd bytes of ciphertext, only 65 distinct values
appear, one of them 19 times. AES my arse. This is a home-grown algorithm, and not a particularly good one. All it'll take is for someone with enough time to care enough.
Homegrown stuff doesn't apply.
Of course it does! The question is *about* a homegrown cipher. You are answering the question you think should have been asked instead of the question that actually was asked.
Anyone with half a brain
would use vetted ciphers.
The ciphertext is right there in the quoted text. Does it look to you
like the output of a "vetted cipher"?
Rubber hosing isn't breaking encryption.
Not elegantly, no. But if it gets the plaintext, it gets the plaintext.
That's hurts because it 100% true. If they get the plaintext, then a
simple rubber hose broke it. ;^)
I don't understand your rubberhose arguments, I must admit. If a sender
has a Government trojan on his device, no rubberhose is needed. If the
sender uses (without a Government trojan) anonymous Networks, which it
seems you guys are not using (yet), how would be rubberhose applied, if
they can't find the sender?
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:4yrBiF3yKcgTjqHvtc0V35AWiP9PfWmB6xmBXg0LPPJ87qEJdAPo3dmlNpqlCeHk5sgceF+nr0rRlhoFaiYb1u6apRcdd1NpQf/6Z1KwLeEB+Fle5Mo7MP6OrKX1Sny3ZDYrRtXcLZCNmq/vgwvMmKJDia/VofZUC+E3LW47Bi922je+8kWtrN3LlAOWj/7BkzVFH+dHt1KxGM9JWdUqGU6+
On 3/24/2025 7:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 24/03/2025 13:10, The Running Man wrote:
On 24/03/2025 12:51 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 11:32, The Running Man wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:21 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 04:51, The Running Man wrote:
On 23/03/2025 05:14 hal@invalid.com wrote:
What are the chances that the encrypted text in this message >> > > > > > > > could be
broken?
No one knows what program made the file. It's 256 bit encryption.
How would a encryption expert go about attempting to decrypt the
message?
The password is a dozen words, many mispelled, plus punctuation;.
UjRqfeHYUOIgEIbQWRo48ZJ1roD4t7T7Xfg0l4OJUzbDDX498ig4AIwFdke01VubFkotdHvLS5XVEXL1cacNUH1Ica0nDzHCJRD6ttkgslN+RFZlXPLX3HWratd16l2iwpQMO9E2p2a8Usfb2D9KIB1PnSeLAMwgVAiI1RcrkZXW8uQ6i8Y4Escjy5n/2uNqPvplfzddMoyV+
.
I'd say the chances are close to zero.
Unless it matters, in which case the probability rises to near
certainty.
Nonsense. Even the NSA has admitted they can't break
AES-256.
(a) What makes you think the above ciphertext is AES-256?
(b) If the NSA cares enough to try, they'll crack it using side
channels (e.g. rubber hose).
(c) In 700-odd bytes of ciphertext, only 65 distinct values
appear, one of them 19 times. AES my arse. This is a home-grown
algorithm, and not a particularly good one. All it'll take is for
someone with enough time to care enough.
Homegrown stuff doesn't apply.
Of course it does! The question is *about* a homegrown cipher. You are
answering the question you think should have been asked instead of the
question that actually was asked.
Anyone with half a brain
would use vetted ciphers.
The ciphertext is right there in the quoted text. Does it look to you
like the output of a "vetted cipher"?
Rubber hosing isn't breaking encryption.
Not elegantly, no. But if it gets the plaintext, it gets the plaintext.
That's hurts because it 100% true. If they get the plaintext, then a
simple rubber hose broke it. ;^)
I don't understand your rubberhose arguments, I must admit. If a sender
has a Government trojan on his device, no rubberhose is needed. If the
sender uses (without a Government trojan) anonymous Networks, which it
seems you guys are not using (yet), how would be rubberhose applied, if
they can't find the sender?
Regards
Stefan
Do not these crypto "experts" realize how childish and ridiculous it is
to keep bringing up this rubber hose crap? Anyone who lives in such a vicious tyrannical society does not have to have the rubber hose
phenomenon explained to them. But, mostly, it hasn't squat to do with
the subject matter of this group.
And - I don't think - despite ignoramus that I am - that the encryption
I posted can be broken. There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not, how in the hell would any "expert" even
start anywhere at all.
Do not these crypto "experts"
realize how childish and ridiculous it is
to keep bringing up this rubber hose crap?
And - I don't think - despite ignoramus that I am - that the encryption
I posted can be broken.
There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not,
how in the hell would any "expert" even
start anywhere at all.
And as far as junk programs go, which still do encrypt/decrypt properly, change/delete some matter from the encrypted file, matter which one can replace for proper decryption, and tell me how in the hell would any
expert have a clue what was before them?
There is too much pedantic display of an uncertain subject in this
group.
No, I ain't no crypto expert.
I don't have the slightest clue about the
subject
except that I know commonsense usually works, especially against
such stultification regarding proprietary or "non vetted" crypto.
And - I am not speaking of crypto for mass use. Only for personal use, wherein one *can* make it useful and secure.
But, like I said, what the hell do I know?
I don't have a clue about this stuff.
I merely asked a dumbass question.
And that dumbass question got me into enuf trouble in this
group where nobody seems to understand much of any reality.
Now you
want me to go someplace where people*do* know what they're talking
about?
hal@invalid.com wrote:
Do not these crypto "experts" realize how childish and ridiculous it is
to keep bringing up this rubber hose crap? Anyone who lives in such a
vicious tyrannical society does not have to have the rubber hose
phenomenon explained to them. But, mostly, it hasn't squat to do with
the subject matter of this group.
And - I don't think - despite ignoramus that I am - that the encryption
I posted can be broken. There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not, how in the hell would any "expert" even
start anywhere at all.
Such a behaviour in Usenet, is nowadays common, not only in this group.
Hence, long ago people switched to Bitmessage ...
You can discuss, for example, your topic in the Bitmessage chan(nel):
[chan] sci.crypt
Address: BM-2cVsPz7KY9ziDETwnx8GrWAvG953YUfXur
Regards
Stefan
On 24/03/2025 21:33, hal@invalid.com wrote:
There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not,
It's not. How do I know? Well, take a look at the histogram:
Code 49 ( 1) 19 ( 2.70%)
Code 88 ( X) 18 ( 2.55%)
Code 100 ( d) 16 ( 2.27%)
Code 105 ( i) 16 ( 2.27%)
Code 69 ( E) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 70 ( F) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 82 ( R) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 99 ( c) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 108 ( l) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 111 ( o) 15 ( 2.13%)
For a flat ciphertext we'd expect to see each byte value 2-3 times, but
in your ciphertext 3/4 of the byte values don't appear /at all/.
Richard Heathfield in sci.crypt:
On 24/03/2025 21:33, hal@invalid.com wrote:
[...]
There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not,
It's not. How do I know? Well, take a look at the histogram:
Code 49 ( 1) 19 ( 2.70%)
Code 88 ( X) 18 ( 2.55%)
Code 100 ( d) 16 ( 2.27%)
Code 105 ( i) 16 ( 2.27%)
Code 69 ( E) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 70 ( F) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 82 ( R) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 99 ( c) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 108 ( l) 15 ( 2.13%)
Code 111 ( o) 15 ( 2.13%)
For a flat ciphertext we'd expect to see each byte value 2-3 times, but
in your ciphertext 3/4 of the byte values don't appear /at all/.
ACK
But what about Base64?
The Base64 decoded 'text' has 528 bytes.
There are 228 different byte values, most of which (88) occur once
and four seven times. I would expect 528/256 = 2.0625 per byte value.
Still pretty spiky, though.
We can now conclude that this is not only not AES but also not AES
shrouded by base64, but yes, a base64 does seem pretty likely. What's
under it still looks home-grown, though.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? i.e. time to see the algorithm?
On 25/03/25 12:18, Marcel Logen wrote:
Richard Heathfield in sci.crypt:
On 24/03/2025 21:33, hal@invalid.com wrote:
[...]
There's no sign at all of which program
encrypted it. Be it AES or not,
It's not. How do I know? Well, take a look at the histogram:
Code 49 ( 1)    19 ( 2.70%)
Code 88 ( X)    18 ( 2.55%)
Code 100 ( d)Â Â Â Â 16 (Â 2.27%)
Code 105 ( i)Â Â Â Â 16 (Â 2.27%)
Code 69 ( E)    15 ( 2.13%)
Code 70 ( F)    15 ( 2.13%)
Code 82 ( R)    15 ( 2.13%)
Code 99 ( c)    15 ( 2.13%)
Code 108 ( l)Â Â Â Â 15 (Â 2.13%)
Code 111 ( o)Â Â Â Â 15 (Â 2.13%)
For a flat ciphertext we'd expect to see each byte value 2-3
times, but
in your ciphertext 3/4 of the byte values don't appear /at all/.
ACK
But what about Base64?
| t20$ openssl enc -base64 -d -in cip | hexdump -v -f
hexdump-format02
| 00000000Â 52 34 6A 7D E1 D8 50 E2Â 20 10 86 D0 59 1A 38 F1
|R4j}..P. ...Y.8.|
| 00000016Â 92 75 AE 80 F8 B7 B4 FBÂ 5D F8 34 97 83 89 53 36
|.u......].4...S6|
| 00000032Â C3 0D 7E 3D F2 28 38 00Â 8C 05 76 47 B4 D5 5B 9B
|..~=.(8...vG..[.|
| 00000048Â 16 4A 2D 74 7B CB 4B 95Â D5 11 72 F5 71 A7 0D 50
|.J-t{.K...r.q..P|
| 00000064Â 7D 48 71 AD 27 0F 31 C2Â 25 10 FA B6 D9 20 B2 53
|}Hq.'.1.%.... .S|
| 00000080Â 7E 44 56 65 5C F2 D7 DCÂ 75 AB 6A D7 75 EA 5D A2
|~DVe\...u.j.u.].|
| 00000096Â C2 94 0C 3B D1 36 A7 66Â BC 52 C7 DB D8 3F 4A 20
|...;.6.f.R...?J |
| 00000112Â 1D 4F 9D 27 8B 00 CC 20Â 54 08 88 D5 17 2B 91 95
|.O.'... T....+..|
| 00000128Â D6 F2 E4 3A 8B C6 38 12Â C7 23 CB 99 FF DA E3 6A
|...:..8..#.....j|
| 00000144Â 3E FA 65 7F 37 5D 32 8CÂ 95 FB 8C AB 06 21 77 C8
.e.7]2......!w.|| 00000160Â A7 20 4E 3A 87 BE D7 34Â 57 7E 40 5A 23 FD 3D F5
|. N:...4W~@Z#.=.|
| 00000176Â A6 07 AC 66 05 78 34 2CÂ F3 C9 F3 BA 84 25 D0 0F
|...f.x4,.....%..|
| 00000192Â A3 77 66 94 DA 6A 94 27Â 87 93 9B 20 71 E1 7E 9E
|.wf..j.'... q.~.|
| 00000208Â BD 2B 46 58 68 15 A8 98Â 6F 5B BA 6A 94 5C 75 DD
|.+FXh...o[.j.\u.|
| 00000224Â 4D A5 07 FF E9 9D 4A C0Â B7 84 07 E1 65 7B 93 28
|M.....J.....e{.(|
| 00000240Â EC C3 FA 3A B2 97 D5 29Â F2 DD 90 D8 AD 1B 57 70
|...:...)......Wp|
| 00000256Â B6 42 36 6A BF BE 0C 2FÂ 32 62 89 0E 26 BF 56 87
|.B6j.../2b..&.V.|
| 00000272Â D9 50 2F 84 DC B5 B8 ECÂ 18 BD DB 68 DE FB C9 16
|.P/........h....|
| 00000288Â B6 B3 77 2E 50 0E 5A 3FÂ FB 06 4C D5 14 7F 9D 1E
|..w.P.Z?..L.....|
| 00000304Â DD 4A C4 63 3D 25 67 54Â A8 65 3A FA 9A B6 30 CD
|.J.c=%gT.e:...0.|
| 00000320Â F7 14 57 AC A1 18 16 51Â C2 DA 05 7F 2C 21 28 91
|..W....Q....,!(.|
| 00000336Â 57 58 B2 38 5A 24 CA AEÂ D2 0B 71 28 5D DE E2 76
|WX.8Z$....q(]..v|
| 00000352Â D2 3D CA 2A 52 97 B0 43Â 44 DB EF 9F 4D 8E 31 B0
|.=.*R..CD...M.1.|
| 00000368Â 90 DD DD 3D C9 8F 1D 5FÂ 52 F1 C5 A6 3D C7 71 2F
|...=..._R...=.q/|
| 00000384Â 25 2D 2B 45 6F 59 C1 E0Â 17 82 A6 03 42 E8 1F 4E
|%-+EoY......B..N|
| 00000400Â B0 0F CD 6E 31 95 62 29Â CA 64 94 71 E4 A4 11 13
|...n1.b).d.q....|
| 00000416Â B9 76 C2 AD 99 93 35 73Â 49 93 11 22 94 3C 47 FD
|.v....5sI..".<G.|
| 00000432Â 50 69 FF 8A 80 CA BE E7Â E2 D7 BF BA 94 53 AB F3
|Pi...........S..|
| 00000448Â 56 A3 F0 85 09 2A 3C 88Â 11 88 4D CF F4 90 56 80
|V....*<...M...V.|
| 00000464Â 17 FA 7C 4E 05 3A 16 2BÂ 53 D5 17 A8 E5 44 AC 23
|..|N.:.+S....D.#|
| 00000480Â EB 50 AF D3 25 F0 37 E7Â C5 36 5F DF 14 B4 89 50
|.P..%.7..6_....P|
| 00000496Â 41 01 1D 54 E2 6D 16 0CÂ CD 29 89 69 07 A0 71 7E
|A..T.m...).i..q~|
| 00000512Â 88 29 A2 E1 28 FE 0F 85Â CE 57 6A 7A 33 36 93 95
|.)..(....Wjz36..|
| 00000528
The Base64 decoded 'text' has 528 bytes.
There are 228 different byte values, most of which (88) occur once
and four seven times. I would expect 528/256 = 2.0625 per byte
value.
Marcel
Possibly 33 128 bit blocks ( aes has a block size 0f 128 bits )
To hell with the problem. None of those guys you mentioned give a dang
about what the scattered mess of characters in one of my files mean. As
for anyone in my personal world, they'd look at a PGP message and think
my E-mail program screwed up the message and made it an unreadable mess.
Problem solved.
Thanks for answering.
hal@invalid.com wrote:
To hell with the problem. None of those guys you mentioned give a dang
about what the scattered mess of characters in one of my files mean. As
for anyone in my personal world, they'd look at a PGP message and think
my E-mail program screwed up the message and made it an unreadable mess.
Problem solved.
Thanks for answering.
And the group award for "new AOB" goes to hal@invalid.com....
On 25/03/25 12:18, Marcel Logen wrote:
[...]| t20$ openssl enc -base64 -d -in cip | hexdump -v -f hexdump-format02
| 00000000 52 34 6A 7D E1 D8 50 E2 20 10 86 D0 59 1A 38 F1 |R4j}..P. ...Y.8.|
| 00000016 92 75 AE 80 F8 B7 B4 FB 5D F8 34 97 83 89 53 36 |.u......].4...S6|
| 00000032 C3 0D 7E 3D F2 28 38 00 8C 05 76 47 B4 D5 5B 9B |..~=.(8...vG..[.|
| 00000048 16 4A 2D 74 7B CB 4B 95 D5 11 72 F5 71 A7 0D 50 |.J-t{.K...r.q..P|
| 00000064 7D 48 71 AD 27 0F 31 C2 25 10 FA B6 D9 20 B2 53 |}Hq.'.1.%.... .S|
| 00000080 7E 44 56 65 5C F2 D7 DC 75 AB 6A D7 75 EA 5D A2 |~DVe\...u.j.u.].|
| 00000096 C2 94 0C 3B D1 36 A7 66 BC 52 C7 DB D8 3F 4A 20 |...;.6.f.R...?J |
| 00000112 1D 4F 9D 27 8B 00 CC 20 54 08 88 D5 17 2B 91 95 |.O.'... T....+..|
| 00000128 D6 F2 E4 3A 8B C6 38 12 C7 23 CB 99 FF DA E3 6A |...:..8..#.....j|
| 00000144 3E FA 65 7F 37 5D 32 8C 95 FB 8C AB 06 21 77 C8 |>.e.7]2......!w.|
| 00000160 A7 20 4E 3A 87 BE D7 34 57 7E 40 5A 23 FD 3D F5 |. N:...4W~@Z#.=.|
| 00000176 A6 07 AC 66 05 78 34 2C F3 C9 F3 BA 84 25 D0 0F |...f.x4,.....%..|
| 00000192 A3 77 66 94 DA 6A 94 27 87 93 9B 20 71 E1 7E 9E |.wf..j.'... q.~.|
| 00000208 BD 2B 46 58 68 15 A8 98 6F 5B BA 6A 94 5C 75 DD |.+FXh...o[.j.\u.|
| 00000224 4D A5 07 FF E9 9D 4A C0 B7 84 07 E1 65 7B 93 28 |M.....J.....e{.(|
| 00000240 EC C3 FA 3A B2 97 D5 29 F2 DD 90 D8 AD 1B 57 70 |...:...)......Wp|
| 00000256 B6 42 36 6A BF BE 0C 2F 32 62 89 0E 26 BF 56 87 |.B6j.../2b..&.V.|
| 00000272 D9 50 2F 84 DC B5 B8 EC 18 BD DB 68 DE FB C9 16 |.P/........h....|
| 00000288 B6 B3 77 2E 50 0E 5A 3F FB 06 4C D5 14 7F 9D 1E |..w.P.Z?..L.....|
| 00000304 DD 4A C4 63 3D 25 67 54 A8 65 3A FA 9A B6 30 CD |.J.c=%gT.e:...0.|
| 00000320 F7 14 57 AC A1 18 16 51 C2 DA 05 7F 2C 21 28 91 |..W....Q....,!(.|
| 00000336 57 58 B2 38 5A 24 CA AE D2 0B 71 28 5D DE E2 76 |WX.8Z$....q(]..v|
| 00000352 D2 3D CA 2A 52 97 B0 43 44 DB EF 9F 4D 8E 31 B0 |.=.*R..CD...M.1.|
| 00000368 90 DD DD 3D C9 8F 1D 5F 52 F1 C5 A6 3D C7 71 2F |...=..._R...=.q/|
| 00000384 25 2D 2B 45 6F 59 C1 E0 17 82 A6 03 42 E8 1F 4E |%-+EoY......B..N|
| 00000400 B0 0F CD 6E 31 95 62 29 CA 64 94 71 E4 A4 11 13 |...n1.b).d.q....|
| 00000416 B9 76 C2 AD 99 93 35 73 49 93 11 22 94 3C 47 FD |.v....5sI..".<G.|
| 00000432 50 69 FF 8A 80 CA BE E7 E2 D7 BF BA 94 53 AB F3 |Pi...........S..|
| 00000448 56 A3 F0 85 09 2A 3C 88 11 88 4D CF F4 90 56 80 |V....*<...M...V.|
| 00000464 17 FA 7C 4E 05 3A 16 2B 53 D5 17 A8 E5 44 AC 23 |..|N.:.+S....D.#|
| 00000480 EB 50 AF D3 25 F0 37 E7 C5 36 5F DF 14 B4 89 50 |.P..%.7..6_....P|
| 00000496 41 01 1D 54 E2 6D 16 0C CD 29 89 69 07 A0 71 7E |A..T.m...).i..q~|
| 00000512 88 29 A2 E1 28 FE 0F 85 CE 57 6A 7A 33 36 93 95 |.)..(....Wjz36..|
| 00000528
The Base64 decoded 'text' has 528 bytes.
Possibly 33 128 bit blocks ( aes has a block size 0f 128 bits )
512 bytes of plaintext become 528 bytes of ciphertext
with AES256 CBC (without salt).
Nv l9!==F\
}Jlbr|" {-/ {AGE aVdu x31 _~=F|MZeeyA
!3+* J [,,UKTrj3 u"+*;F .OL Qew 15(5;#|F8
|UY um07=![. IFKY ar zuy #;AH ,I VQU Zm0z3{:}JM
WOSmg j18 {)= [JANU FSI z3&% ><y
%RVZl
I'd say we're an algorithm short of a crank. Anyone can post a
ciphertext:
33 EA B3 38 48 0D F3 00 51 A4 C9 8D 24 FE F9 00
A3 71 21 62 14 FB F7 00 44 16 EC 96 2A E3 EC 00
D4 D8 7E 7A 00 7F FE 00 79 36 B9 43 84 7C FD 00
FC 6A 8C 02 62 03 FC 00 9D 0C 60 04 60 7F FD 00
18 0F AE 07 88 FE BC 00
See?
(Hints available on request.)
On 26/03/25 10:54, Marcel Logen wrote:
colin in sci.crypt:
On 25/03/25 12:18, Marcel Logen wrote:
[...]The Base64 decoded 'text' has 528 bytes.
Possibly 33 128 bit blocks ( aes has a block size 0f 128 bits )
32, I think.
512 bytes of plaintext become 528 bytes of ciphertext
with AES256 CBC (without salt).
I can produce 528 bytes of ciphertext with 513 bytes of plaintext. ie an >extra block is added.
eg:
$ cat 512bytes.txt | aespipe -e aes256 -P password.txt | wc -c
512
$ cat 513bytes.txt | aespipe -e aes256 -P password.txt | wc -c
528
Richard Heathfield in sci.crypt:
I'd say we're an algorithm short of a crank. Anyone can post a
ciphertext:
33 EA B3 38 48 0D F3 00 51 A4 C9 8D 24 FE F9 00
A3 71 21 62 14 FB F7 00 44 16 EC 96 2A E3 EC 00
D4 D8 7E 7A 00 7F FE 00 79 36 B9 43 84 7C FD 00
FC 6A 8C 02 62 03 FC 00 9D 0C 60 04 60 7F FD 00
18 0F AE 07 88 FE BC 00
See?
(Hints available on request.)
With the hint from Colin I could decrypt this.
I had already thought that it would go in this direction.
And - I am not speaking of crypto for mass use. Only for personal use, wherein one *can* make it useful and secure.
If the
sender uses [...] anonymous Networks, which it
seems you guys are not using (yet), how would be rubberhose applied, if
they can't find the sender?
On 24/03/2025 21:33, hal@invalid.com wrote:
And - I am not speaking of crypto for mass use. Only for personal use,
wherein one *can* make it useful and secure.
No. You can't. Even if you are an expert.
On 27/03/2025 04:13, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 24/03/2025 21:33, hal@invalid.com wrote:
And - I am not speaking of crypto for mass use. Only for
personal use,
wherein one *can* make it useful and secure.
No. You can't. Even if you are an expert.
Of course the other point is, why would you bother when we have
good ciphers already?
Pride? But we know you aren't a good cryptographer anyway,
because a good cryptographer wouldn't use a home-grown cipher.
Looks like it's up to the implementation of how it implements padding
and how many bytes it requires to do it.
$ openssl enc -aes-256-cbc -in 511bytes.txt -pass pass:1234 -pbkdf2 | wc -c >528
$ cat 511bytes.txt | aespipe -e aes256 -P password.txt | wc -c
512
The way I understand it is AES is only a basic building block that takes
a 128bit block and scrambles it to a different 128bit block.
All the other building blocks ( eg: salt, IV, padding, mode of operation
etc ) are added in to suit what the implementation requires.
On 24/03/2025 19:07, Stefan Claas wrote:
If the
sender uses [...] anonymous Networks, which it
seems you guys are not using (yet), how would be rubberhose applied, if they can't find the sender?
Unfortunately there aren't any effective anonymous networks. At least
none I would trust against NSA/GCHQ/SCA/SCS.
Mixmaster might have been effective once, if properly used, but it is
now moribund and never had enough traffic.
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 24/03/2025 19:07, Stefan Claas wrote:
If the
sender uses [...] anonymous Networks, which it
seems you guys are not using (yet), how would be rubberhose applied, if
they can't find the sender?
Unfortunately there aren't any effective anonymous networks. At least
none I would trust against NSA/GCHQ/SCA/SCS.
Isn't the Tor Network not a solid foundation, which can be build up from?
Mixmaster might have been effective once, if properly used, but it is
now moribund and never had enough traffic.
The successor of Mixmaster is YAMN, but nowadays people are working
also on Katzenpost and Nym.
I don't know anything about YAMN. Would Lance/Len approve?
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[...] Thank you for your detailed reply, much appreciated!
I don't know anything about YAMN. Would Lance/Len approve?
YAMN works the same as Mixmaster, but has revised crypto algos.
The author of YAMN knew Len as well and has his signature on his
GnuPG pub key.
On 11/04/2025 21:29, Mini Mailer wrote:
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[...] Thank you for your detailed reply, much appreciated!
I don't know anything about YAMN. Would Lance/Len approve?
YAMN works the same as Mixmaster, but has revised crypto algos.
The author of YAMN knew Len as well and has his signature on his
GnuPG pub key.
Sadly missed. :(
Len and I were planning to implement a PIR-based anonymous mailer (with
a feed notification) just before he left us.