Is there a reason you care? No? Then go **** yourself.Quote:
Uhm, is there a good reason you are directly quoting information from a website that seems to be directly attributed to a person (Fred Avolio to be specific) and presenting it as your own? This attribution is implied, since you don't quote out the entry or link to the site. Interesting.
Don't believe me? Follow the link in Egaladeist's previous post.
BUSTED
*OFF TOPIC* PUSHING THE LIMIT, HUH! I have been observing AO for a couple of months and been aware of rules and such. TheSpecialist is the guy who was banned before and came back and now, banned again, and maybe he’ll come back again. Some people also reincarnated but not that obvious. :)Quote:
TheSpecialist
Banned
Well, as far as encryption is concerned,
Just like most of the members told, IT_IS_JUST_A_MATTER_OF_TIME. How much, computationally, it will depend on many things, BOXES used, encryption strength, etc. etc. (Sorry for repeating what others had already told).Quote:
How easy would it be to crack a 128 bit encryption?
On the other hand, I want to ask something, there are companies, for example, one company allowing me to encrypt my HTML sources who, explicitly mentioned that if ever I had deleted my ORIGINAL (non-encrypted) HTML source, I could contact them and ‘maybe’ they could retrieve the ORIGINAL from the ENCRYPTED COPY. I am just wondering, maybe the ENCRYPTION could be reversed by the creator of the ENCRYPTION software by reversing the formula in which had been used to ENCRYPT something in the first place. Just a thought that everything about it is MATHEMATICALLY computed; therefore the formula can be reversed.
From PGP, I had read their intro to Encryption and it is a good read.
Like most of us think, it is just a matter of TIME.Quote:
Strong cryptography
“There are two kinds of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files. This book is about the latter.”
- Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C
PGP is also about the latter sort of cryptography.
Cryptography can be strong or weak, as explained above. Cryptographic strength is measured in the time and resources it would require to recover the plaintext. The result of strong cryptography is ciphertext that is very difficult to decipher without possession of the appropriate decoding tool. How difficult?
Given all of today’s computing power and available time—even a billion computers doing a billion checks a second—it is not possible to decipher the result of strong cryptography before the end of the universe.
One would think, then, that strong cryptography would hold up rather well against even an extremely determined cryptanalyst. Who’s really to say? No one has proven that the strongest encryption obtainable today will hold up under tomorrow’s computing power. However, the strong cryptography employed by PGP is the best available today. Vigilance and conservatism will protect you better, however, than claims of impenetrability.
---
Larger keys will be cryptographically secure for a longer period of time. If what you want to encrypt needs to be hidden for many years, you might want to use a very large key. Of course, who knows how long it will take to determine your key using tomorrow’s faster, more efficient computers? There was a time when a 56-bit symmetric key was considered extremely safe.
Current thinking is that 128-bit keys will be safe indefinitely, at least until someone invents a usable quantum computer. We also believe that 256-bit keys will be safe indefinitely, even if someone invents a quantum computer.
This is why the AES includes options for 128 and 256-bit keys. But history tells is that it’s quite possible someone will think this statement amusingly quaint in a few decades.
---
A read from PGP’s IntroToCrypto.pdf
-GONE
The only html encryption that i know of and still allows a normal browser to render your page is unescape, a javascript function.
The browser simply executes the decryption and you can retreive the good source from your cache i think.
or use this http://www.linkedresources.com/tools...er_v0.2b1.html
To crack a 123bit P/W it will take all the computing power in the earth for a period of 10 yrs.
If by P/W you mean password, no, I don't think so..........."rainbow tables" would do the job in hours if not minutes given the computing resource of major governments/intelligence agencies etc.........Quote:
To crack a 123bit P/W it will take all the computing power in the earth for a period of 10 yrs.
As -GONE quoted:
That assumes that the ability to break the encryption can only be achieved through greater computing power.Quote:
Current thinking is that 128-bit keys will be safe indefinitely, at least until someone invents a usable quantum computer. We also believe that 256-bit keys will be safe indefinitely, even if someone invents a quantum computer.
I cannot help but wonder if there might be some clever methodology that will turn things upside down like rainbow tables have to password cracking.
Just a thought :)
You mean if you were to try and bruteforce a password of 128 bits in lenght you need all the computing power in the world for 10 years. Not including any advances in the field that are bound to happen in that time ?Quote:
Originally posted here by white_pawn
To crack a 123bit P/W it will take all the computing power in the earth for a period of 10 yrs.
Can you support that with some evidence a studie on the matter or at least the name of the guy you got that from ?
Also read man read.
http://www.avolio.com/columns/pkiq+a.html
tahrizi -> Fred Avolio] how long 128 bit encryption could be crack
Quote:
When the press talks about "cracking" or "breaking" an encryption algorithm. They always seem to mean this: the "attacker" decrypted a message by guessing the secret key that was used for the encryption. This is not breaking or cracking a particular algorithm. But it does demonstrate the importance of key size. The key size -- the number of bits used to store the key, which is an integer number -- determines the size of the key space, the number of possible keys that can be used. If you knew that to decrypt a message you needed to guess a number between 1 and 10, would you feel challenged? How about between 1 and 1000? How about 1 and 1^38 (1 followed by 38 zeros). That is (roughly) the key space using a 128-bit key. For comparison purposes, let’s use a (so far) non-existent computer that can guess 1 trillion (1 followed by 12 zeroes) keys a second. On average, it would take around 2 million million million (2 followed by 18 zeroes) years to guess the key.
--
But the discussion was about a 128 bit encryption algorithm through things like patterns and weaknesses in the algorithm. Something completly different. Let me make it simple.
Strange formulas and mathematicle shizz combined with complicated lines of programming .
--
I call troll.
--
[edit]Damn nihil beat me. I swear his post wasn't there when I started writing :P[edit]
MoonWolf,
Thanks for the info!
Eyup, it is javascript alright and it uses 'unescape' but...Quote:
The only html encryption that i know of and still allows a normal browser to render your page is unescape, a javascript function.
The browser simply executes the decryption and you can retreive the good source from your cache i think.
is not working. It again shows symbols. Maybe a stronger ENCRYPTION. You have any other tools for cracking my HTML SOURCE?Quote:
Want to try to crack the encrypted part of the page? check the source of http://www.onionboy.0catch.com/
-GONE
__________________
an"to*nym (noun) [Greek: a word used in substitution for another]
A word of opposite meaning ; a counter-term ; used as a correlative of synonym
- Dr. Gung-ho
Read the text file its a bit large with all the copy pasted stuff to fit nicly into the forum
Im not done with this, ill get to the bottom. Or is this what you were after ?
MoonWolf,
Thanks again.
About the codes, not yet satisfying although some of the codes you had cracked, but the main thing here is, since the ENCRYPTION is automatically made by the SW that I had mentioned, it's about HTML protection. You may notice that the ENCRYPTED PAGES (especially the main page when you AGREE to ENTER) actually prevents the following:
1. VIEWING THE CODE ENTIRELY
2. VIEWING THE HTML PAGE OFFLINE (try it!)
3. VIEWING OR SAVING THE IMAGES OFFLINE (try it, I haven't done it for a while)
4. COPY PASTE IS DISABLED WHILE THE HTML IS OPENED (Even in your entire PC it is disabled [IE]- Lol)
5. And a lot more... Check it out, maybe you'll crack it and it will really interest me. Challenge everything!
Anyway, thank you for your time and efforts. It is really nice to learn things and explore the magnificent world of TECHNOLOGY and COMPUTER.
-GONE
__________________
an"to*nym (noun) [Greek: a word used in substitution for another]
A word of opposite meaning ; a counter-term ; used as a correlative of synonym
- Dr. Gung-ho
No problem I dont mind doing this, Some people make jigsaws I like this.
All the fancy stuff you hid down there in the back of your code was useless as it doesn't work in firefox.
I only found out about it when you posted and i tested it in IE.
The final bit was a unicode string. After i found that out it was a piece of cake.
--
Back on topic.
When will 128 bit be obsolete and what will we after that ?