Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 14:07:50 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <vrrovm$11oms$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrrh0h$nscg$1@dont-email.me>
 <fCwjUEYVF8eg0zhdLcl3X+q7CCGal0Ox3PTmngktqnw=@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 15:07:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bcafc7898a8d5fea5bc2dfe3e9156103";
	logging-data="1106652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6/BG6dIcK3+qSVcxLRyW2drbIopP4IkA7bKDPpMHH8g=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SjSGL+7dIHrC4eyEf3Ht+IAe44M=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <fCwjUEYVF8eg0zhdLcl3X+q7CCGal0Ox3PTmngktqnw=@writeable.com>
Bytes: 3901

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

-- 
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