Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: What are the chances of this encrytion being broken?
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:51:45 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <vrrh0h$nscg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrqq45$66us$4@dont-email.me>
 <r+UR22zj8aK9BZMBty+cVrGV7euPr+Az6Nx+ECp38iY=@writeable.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:51:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bcafc7898a8d5fea5bc2dfe3e9156103";
	logging-data="782736"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Y8dLbXgQDWRnvgWuM1wTJ/xDcMbowuhYdKP2EDwIOXQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ixAf/djtkyXSiStl4z4xrSMv2eg=
In-Reply-To: <r+UR22zj8aK9BZMBty+cVrGV7euPr+Az6Nx+ECp38iY=@writeable.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3143

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;.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> .
>>>
>>> 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.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within