[12amps]

I was watching Alias the other day, (forget which episode) and saw
the short guy brag about some program he wrote that can crack
512-bit Encryption. (and in the show it cracked it like in under a minute)

And this wasn't with a supercomputer instead it looked more like a Dell P4.

So my question is this, obviously it cannot be a brute force attack. IS there really a secret unknown clever algorithm/method that can somehow crack or bypass/circumvent 512-encrpytion? And small enough to fit onto a flash toggle (like in the show) ???

Maybe the NSA/CSS has such a clever/roundabout way to comprimise all the known encryption methods and we (the public and even those we write WONDERFUL encryption software like TrueCrypt) are just simply NOT IN THE KNOW. (I'm mean if they have such a method you think they really would be stupid enough to spread rumors??)

Just wondering...... It would be SUCH a neat concept if it was true.
Brute force attacks really are not impossible and 'stupid' and there really must be a ultraclever way of breaking codes/encrpytion that we don't know about... Ideas anyone??

BTW are there any such clever cracking programs /software available for download on the internet? LC5 is cool, but again its brute force, and brute force methods can never crack a 512-bit encryption.

Of course with the NSA's super-quantum computers they probably can feasibly crack 8192-bit encrpytion (maybe all encrpytion methods have a weakness or workaround??, and how would one actually know otherwise??) I do know as fact that 2048-bit encrpytion is now considered 'weak' if you have information that is worth billions of dollars to protect/keep secret. Considering that online transactions are typically 128-bit it makes you wonder why even bother..

Thanks, please comment with ideas. I'm not paranoid, but just believe that the NSA does indeed have something like this we don't know about.

[gnm]

Dude, step away from the bong... And while you're at it throw away your TV. The NSA doesn't have "quantum computers" and there is no software that can crack 512bit encryption in a minute...

-G

[12amps]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'D')ude, step away from the bong... And while you're at it throw away your TV. The NSA doesn't have "quantum computers" and there is no software that can crack 512bit encryption in a minute...

-G

[gnm]

Hmmmm, You never know.... I could be a 25+ year veteran computer systems analyst working for the defense department.... Then again I could be flipping burgers at the local McD's...

-G

[12amps]

gmn,

THis is a while back, but I remember this one part in the movie A beautiful Mind where the professor gives a math problem on the board for the students to solve and he said it would take the length of there natural lifes, and yet he can solve it in a few minutes using an ingenuis methods.

THIS is the kind of cleverness I am talking about. Of course no program can crack 512-bit in less than a minute, (assuming brute force), but that does not mean there are no algorithms that can let a normal computer crack a strong encryption using nonconventional methods.

Take Maple mathmatics software for example, it can factor a 80 some digit prime number in less than an hour on a Pentium 4 Desktop. Even better with the quadratic sieve method 160 digit strong primes can now be factor within months. I'm just sugessting maybe the NSA has something totally on a high level in a different ballfield that even you so called 'defense /computer anayslt' doesnot know about.

Cause if every anayslt was in on it, what would it be so 'secret' anymore??

[gnm]

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you....

Read "Cryptonomicon" . Its entertaining and does a nice job of covering the background of a fairly dry subject.

cracking (and factoring primes) becomes exponentially more difficult the larger the number. Duh. 512bit isn't just twice as hard as 256bit.

-G

[12amps]

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/g ... /#download

Crunch big numbers with GT3 using a quadratic sieve

A factorization service for computational grids

In the report "Factorization of a 512-bit RSA Modulus" in which the authors discuss the completed factorization of the 512-bit, 155-digit number RSA-155 using the number field sieve; they also discuss the implications for RSA. (PDF)

Dude, 512-bit encryption is CAKE, it is DEFINETLY CRACKABLE. IF you thinks it is not, then you the one on crack.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('12amps', 'h')ttp://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/grid/library/gr-factor/#download

Crunch big numbers with GT3 using a quadratic sieve

A factorization service for computational grids

In the report "Factorization of a 512-bit RSA Modulus" in which the authors discuss the completed factorization of the 512-bit, 155-digit number RSA-155 using the number field sieve; they also discuss the implications for RSA. (PDF)

Dude, 512-bit encryption is CAKE, it is DEFINETLY CRACKABLE. IF you thinks it is not, then you the one on crack.

[12amps]

http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2089
number field sieve
How long would a 512-bit modulus take with TWINKLE?

A 512-bit modulus would take 6 to 7 times as long for the sieving and 2 to 3 times the size of the factor bases as RSA-140. The size of the matrix to be solved grows correspondingly, and the time to solve it grows by a factor of about 8. Thus, 15 to 20 devices could do the sieving in about 5-6 weeks. Doubling the number will cut sieving time in half. The matrix would take another 4 weeks and about 2 Gbytes of memory to solve. The total time would be 9-10 weeks. With the same set of conventional hardware as was used for RSA-140, the sieving would take 6 to 7 months and the matrix solving resources would remain the same.

So even with CONVENTIONAL computers it would take only half a year to crack a 512-bit encryption.

And this is just what is INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC


I'm simply suggesting perhaps the math guys at Savage Rd. Fort Meade have developed a simply but clever algorithm (more clever than QS or NFS) and can crack a 512-bit encryption fairly quickly (in a few hours or minutes) even on a conventioal Desktop.

[gnm]

Sorry nothing real clever there - its brute force.

AND it still doesn't scale up. The problem becomes EXPONENTIALLY harder.

Go for it! All you need is a couple $100 million dollar superclusters devoted 24-7 to cracking and in about 8 years you will be able to crack my 2048bit encrypted document. Only I will be using a new key by then anyways.

Hey it gets better!

1. purchase and maintain cutting edge supercomputers
2. factor primes
3. PROFIT!

-G

[ChumpusRex2]

You need to be aware of the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric cryptography - because they work in different ways, and require hugely different key lengths.

Asymmetric algorithms (like RSA) are used to inititate communication across an insecure channel (e.g. the internet).

Symmetric algorithms (like DES or AES) are used to encrypt bulk data.

While a symmetric key can be completely arbitary, asymmetric keys have to be found (or generated in some way). Some cryptographers reckon that a 1024 bit RSA key gives approximately equal security to a 128 bit symmetric key.

In fact, when you make a secure connection over the internet - the first thing that happens is a 1024 bit RSA exchange - where the 2 computers exchange a symmetric key. Usually, this is 128 bits - but if you use non-microsoft software (e.g. firefox or mozilla - then this may be 256 bits).

There are clever algorithms that can be used if you have multiple messages sent with the same key (especially, if the messages are similar, but not exactly the same). Variants on these techniques were critical in the breaking of the enigma cipher in WW2.

There are a variety of other clever tricks that can be used, if you have access to a program or machine that can encypt messages and you want to reverse engineer out the keys. Things like artificially inducing power fluctuations, bombarding the circuits with radiation, etc. - so that hopefully, you can make it malfunction and drop hints about the keys.

In modern practice, messages aren't encrypted with asymmetric ciphers, instead only an arbitary symmetric key is. This is because symmetric ciphers are much, much faster to use - and because symmetric keys can be totally arbitary (and changed for each message), defeating attacks that work on multiple similar messages encrypted with the same key.

Yes, 512 bit RSA / 64 bit symmetrical ciphers can be broken with considerable effort - but the possibiltiy is within grasp of a determined attacker. Because effort increases exponentially (adding 1 bit makes the problem twice as hard) - unless someone develops a new type of mathematics or computer technology, 1024 bit / 128 bit is likely to be safe for the forseeable future.

[Free]

I think it's quite safe to assume that the currently most used cryptography algorithms are good and have no hidden backdoors, and only can be cracked with brute force.

Where applications have been cracked recently, the theoretical weaknesses have been known since the beginning, for example WEP with the weak intialization vectors.

A much more interesting approach for paranoics (especially since the software you use is open source when you are not completely dumb) is the hardware. Do you really know your circuits?

Even before the age of the personal computer this was a good method. There were not completely unjustified rumors that one of the most used cryptographical machines, which was produced by a swiss company, had been infiltrated and altered by intelligence services.

Anyway, the weakest link in any security chain ist still the human being, the best algorithm is worth nothing if you have "12345" as a password, sticky it to the monitor, and somebody installed a keylogger in your keyboard...

[12amps]

Everyone knows there are many many creative ways to steal/spy info on someone ( van eck monitoring, tempest, and besides, if you are online then the NSA already spies on you) Nothing is really save, and XP has backdoors, so nothing you do on XP is safe.

The point of diminshing returns is quickly reached. I mean, whats the point of
using 3.14159265358979323846......... to calculate the circumference of your cars tire???


Know what I mean? You are your data are only as safe as the weakest link, and that means, if someone can anaylse the sound patters of your keyboard, then you are screwed, your isp knows everything you are doing online, encrpyted or not, and the NSA knows what everyone is doing. Its a heirachy and you on the bottom is out of luck.

And besides, info is always REALLY stored for use on the human mind.
That is why it has 'value' or 'meaning'. not to get philosophical or whatever, but data is only important in relation to human beings.
Well in that case, information is ALWAYS stored in your mind and you cannot encrpt that, so NSA use truth serum and the truth comes out.

They can scan your brain and extract the info, no need to get a quantum compuiter to defeat a 8129 bit encrption.

[gnm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('12amps', 'E')veryone knows there are many many creative ways to steal/spy info on someone ( van eck monitoring, tempest, and besides, if you are online then the NSA already spies on you) Nothing is really save, and XP has backdoors, so nothing you do on XP is safe.

[12amps]

http://news.com.com/FBI+adds+to+wiretap ... 72948.html


A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.


http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/ ... a_wir.html

Feds Want A Wiretap Backdoor In All Net Hardware and Software

An FCC mandate will require that all hardware and software have a wiretap backdoor that allows the government to tap into all your communications.

The rule isn't yet final, but once it is, all vendors will have 18 months to comply. And in fact, says Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), some router maker

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi ... sec=nation

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of local PC users running pirated Windows operating systems will soon face the shame of being reminded of their illegal action every time they switch on their machines.

The feature will be added to the operating system by Microsoft Corp from tomorrow and cannot be erased. It will nag the guilty users and can be awkward if it shows up on corporate PCs.


Britain Request Vista backdoor. (NSA doesn't need it)



So much for encryption.

[Comp_Lex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o my question is this, obviously it cannot be a brute force attack. IS there really a secret unknown clever algorithm/method that can somehow crack or bypass/circumvent 512-encrpytion? And small enough to fit onto a flash toggle (like in the show) ???