Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: What are the chances of this encrytion being broken?
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:22:43 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vrs7tj$1faj3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrrh0h$nscg$1@dont-email.me>
 <fCwjUEYVF8eg0zhdLcl3X+q7CCGal0Ox3PTmngktqnw=@writeable.com>
 <vrrovm$11oms$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 19:22:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="134859492fb1e605dc9ff2cb841b4e25";
	logging-data="1550947"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198Xc36FMBjGHAPDRyV1RO+GBquciW4KPc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NmLIXrCCkhwagH2BX6/fhXXvUVk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrrovm$11oms$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3956

On 3/24/2025 7:07 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 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.
> 

That's hurts because it 100% true. If they get the plaintext, then a 
simple rubber hose broke it. ;^)