How easy would it be to crack a 128 bit encryption?
How easy would it be to crack a 128 bit encryption?
The most simple answer would be yes. It mainly boils down to knowing how the encrytion works, what type it is. As well as your computing power and just TIME. There are some very strong encryption schemes out there that are near impossible to crack today, but in a few years the power of the stronger PCs will reduce the amount of time that it will take.
There are may different types of attacks agains encrytion, just depends which way you want to go :-)
Also, from some articles I have read, 128 has been cracked for certain algorythms already :-)
There's more than a plethoric amount of bandwidth and sluttish processor time to go around.
CAN U CRACK A 128 BIT ENCRYPTION??
Heck No....
I can hardly crack open a beer.
Just put a gun to my head and let a girl give me a ******* at the same time and i''l crack it under 60 seconds :)
Swordfish :)
well, IBM is now selling use of their systems. You can buy processing time for 1 dollar an hour. So I would say.... Yeah.....
So how much power would that be.Quote:
Originally posted here by whizkid2300
well, IBM is now selling use of their systems. You can buy processing time for 1 dollar an hour. So I would say.... Yeah.....
Moonwolf:
Source: http://nwc.serverpipeline.com/technology/22101264Quote:
IBM's Blue Gene/L computers, which use thousands of low-powered microprocessors and can achieve extremely fast computational speeds while consuming relatively little power, are shooting up the list of the world's fastest machines. A Blue Gene/L system at IBM in Rochester, Minn., rated at 11.68 teraflops is the world's fourth fastest, according to the survey. No. 8 on the list is an 8.65 teraflops system at IBM's Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y. IBM says a Blue Gene/L system being assembled at Lawrence Livermore Lab will be the world's fastest computer when it's completed next year, clocking in at 64 teraflops.
And it is the Blue Gene/L supercomputers that you'd be renting, as confirmed by this article: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/ser...9190972,00.htm
Definition of a Teraflop: A trillion floating-point computing instructions per second, a measure of the enormous number of operations carried out by the most advanced supercomputers today (tera=trillion).
http://www.wiley.com/college/busin/i...c/glossary.htm
- Xierox
In light of this information.
Yes you can crack 128 bit encryption.
its crackable its time thats the problem, theres severly ways -
brute force - this would take ages
weakness in the algothim - good at maths?
side channel attacks - if the encryption is done in a dedicated microprocessor, then unlike the ideal mathmatical equations, you can measure the power comsumed by the chip and use statistics to figure out a key.
i2c
Huh?Quote:
Originally posted here by i2c
side channel attacks - if the encryption is done in a dedicated microprocessor, then unlike the ideal mathmatical equations, you can measure the power comsumed by the chip and use statistics to figure out a key.
i2c, Do you have any links on this? Key words to search on?
/me runs to google to search side channel attacks.
When someone 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.
There are quite a few side-channel attacks. A few years ago someone went and sort of scientifically discovered that their motherboard's tone changes depending on the operations the microprocessor is carrying out. Basically they ran loops of specific functions that the microprocessor would carry out, and they recorded what was audible, and matched it with the operation being carried out, etc. There are others people are more familiar with, such as TEMPEST, but for the most part all of it gets you interesting information about the current state of the machine which may help you guess the "random" numbers being generated or processed.
Computationally 2^128 is pretty large as arindamraha mentioned -- approx 340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Also 2^256 is essentially a number with 77 digits. Things of such size would be very ineffecient to brute force every single combination. With a perfect cipher, you should have to make that many guesses before "cracking" it...
But hidden (or in many cases, clearly visible) problems in an algorithm can greatly reduce the effective keyspace from 2^128 to 2^14 or so.
The most common example here is a repeating XOR encryption technique that many "newbies" rely on. Don't get me wrong, XOR is awesome and perfect for a one-time-pad but, unless you really know what you're doing to avoid the issue, having a 128bit XOR key that cycles to encrypt a large file presents the known-plaintext attack (or some other variation) since its use is so highly predictable and well understood.
In the end, it boils down to what 128-bit encryption you're cracking. It can be as simple as 4096 guesses before a key is found, or it could be a full-blown 3.4*10^38 guesses.
www.ee.usyd.edu.au/~rjunee/sc_side_channel.pdf
(note the extenstion, be careful on 56k)
Side channel means are vast, for instance you could meassure the current, use the method Tim said, measure the EMC, maybe even the heat but this would be cumulative.
For most means you need advanced electronics equipment that can output to a computer for analysis, although I think (can't find much on it) that implementation of this stuff in DSP or PFGA with DSP IP could work, would be interesting to find out.
i2c
Not easy at all. Very time cosuming if your running Internet Explorer 6 it uses 128 bit encryption. To find out your cipher strength Open IE click on Help, go down to about IE look at cipher strength. Also, if your running IE it likes to use;Quote:
How easy would it be to crack a 128 bit encryption?
SSL 3.0 RC4 with 128bit encryption (High); RSA with 1024 bit exchange
Which is pretty secure for data transmissions in my opionion. But to answer your question This would take countless days and nights and a lot of processor time. Its definitely possible just very time consuming.
yeah 128 bit encryption is very much crackable... not kind of swordfish which is more of eye candy in graphical way..
but the pioneer of all the encryptions AES can be cracked by using good cpmputer power..
as aes's biggest problem lies in its easy mathematical implementation..
n even some of the sucessful chosen plaintext attacks has been done so far on advanced encryption standard.
Hi
It has been said: There are several forms of algorithms,
which also influences whether an encryption scheme can be
"cracked" using some attacking method. The most important
difference is between symmetric (like DES, 3DES, ...) and
asymmetric ciphers (RSA, ...): While the 128bit key in AES
is secure, it would not be for the RSA (typically 1024,
2048 and larger keys).
Neo143, what are you talking about? DES, which has a 56bit key
and one could name the pioneer of all encryptions (bah),
has been cracked. But AES[1a,1b] with 128bit or more?
As for 2005, only a few possible attacks for AES are known, e.g.
a theoretical XSL attack[2], which is very resource consuming.
If I am incorrect, I have missed recent development and I
apologise.
Cheers.
[1a] http://www.cryptosystem.net/aes/
[1b] http://www.iaik.tu-graz.ac.at/research/krypto/AES/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSL_attack
What the hell are you talking about? What 'chosen plaintext attacks' have been sucessful against AES? Yes, there was a potential vulnerability announced a few years ago...but only under near-absurd conditions, if memory serves. No one stopped using it.Quote:
Originally posted here by neo143
yeah 128 bit encryption is very much crackable... not kind of swordfish which is more of eye candy in graphical way..
but the pioneer of all the encryptions AES can be cracked by using good cpmputer power..
as aes's biggest problem lies in its easy mathematical implementation..
n even some of the sucessful chosen plaintext attacks has been done so far on advanced encryption standard.
That's like claiming a token is insecure for two factor auth. because if you steal the seed, know the algorithm, and guess the users PIN/password, you can duplicate the passcode. Well yeah, duh. And if you can accurately guess the numbers for the next lotto drawing, you'll be really rich.
Let's talk about reality.
This is a little dated but I think it still makes a good read on the issue and clarifies some issues regarding this topic...
http://www.avolio.com/columns/pkiq+a.html
tahrizi -> Fred Avolio] how long 128 bit encryption could be crack
Eg ;)
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.Quote:
Originally posted here by arindamraha
When someone 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.
Don't believe me? Follow the link in Egaladeist's previous post.
BUSTED
Also...two posts, and a greenie already? WTF over? It has been brought to my attention that I had a dumb-ass moment here...ALL new users have 1 greenie. I confused that with a new user giving you APs...they show up as a grey dot instead of green/red. I assumed the same for users <50 APs. I was a dumbass. Sorry. Not the first time it's happened...certainly not the last. You may now carry on with your lives.
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 ?
Yeah! It really is fun ENCRYPTING then DECRYPTING such. You really have some CooL talent and efforts on searching tools for the right job.Quote:
No problem I dont mind doing this, Some people make jigsaws I like this.
*More OFF-TOPIC* It is also a good way of finding one's weaknesses and learning from it, that makes you striving to be stronger after all.
Nice job over there! Perhaps if you have time, it's un-humble of me asking you to dig more on that website I had made. Thanks always.
:p
-GONE