Thread 106263392

>In 1998, however, the EFF
(Electronic Frontier Foundation) built the hardware machine Deep Crack, which
performed a brute-force attack against DES in 56 hours.

>deep crack

>>106263392 (OP)
>Deep Crack
aka yo mama's ass

>>106263392 (OP)
Do you think they have cracked AES-256 in some glowie dungeon?

>>106263392 (OP)
Out of curiosity: How did its power compare to recent computer? Was it even more powerful than nowadays smartphones?

>>106264211
it used an asic, so i dunno. maybe someone else does. apparently DES wasn't very efficient on the software level.

>>106263392 (OP)
It was as funny then as it is now.

>>106264211
S'not a fair comparison. Deep Crack was just a shitload of custom ASICs, near 2000, that were incredibly efficient at their One Fucking Job running keys (+1 control PC to assign guessing ranges) but are then gonna be pretty much fuck useless for everything else.
Deep Crack could test keys @ 90 billion per second for 56-bit DES. So 9 days max to go through every possiblity and average half that time for a result, at total build cost $250k (1998, so approx $500k now). A modern phone is not designed for cracking DES and it's optimal rate might be 1 million keys per second. But the phone would still be better at literally everything else.

>>106265040
We are here for the "deep crack" jokes not a lecture. But thanks.

>>106263392 (OP)
Deepseek can probe through that one.

>>106266359
Deep seek and deep crack linked up. Need it or keep it?

>>106265040
Thanks anon for explaining

>>106267146
Its a grok response

>>106266345
Not me.
>>106265040
Thanks.
>>106267740
godfuckingdamnit, BURN IT ALL DOWN!

>>106263392 (OP)
>>106265040
What would such a cracker computer built today be able to crack in a matter of days? Banks transfers? HTTPS? Tor? Bitcoins? Encrypted partitions?

>>106267740
I am become Gok, purveyor of hastily-cobbled together pish
>>106266345
Man did ask - the name is a pastiche on Deep Blue, IBMs chess champion.

>>106264143
>cracking your own ciphers
there are backdoors built-it

>>106263392 (OP)
> deep crack
Kek pity they probably chose the name unironically

>>106269889
> backdoors
well, they did name it "deep crack" amirite?

>>106269889
A backdoor for anyone is a backdoor for everyone. But schizos won't understand that, feds won't shit where they eat.

>>106269246
>Banks transfers? HTTPS? Tor? Bitcoins? Encrypted partitions?
most encryption schemes used in sensitive areas now are provably unbreakable (for example i know there is a mathematical proof that AES, DES' successor, is not possible to break with a traditional computer as the amount of compute/time you'd need isn't physically possible)
the only glaring hole is a lot of these aren't quantum-proof, so if you had a quantum computer (which is barely possible at the moment) you may be able to break some of the currently-used ciphers, but now the cutting edge is provably quantum-safe ciphers and we're already seeing those (mullvad vpn for example offers quantum-safe encryption, and other things are moving that way)

DES was actual NSA glow-ware designed SPECIFICALLY to be weak enough for the NSA to crack but not weak enough for normal people to crack. It's why it was 56 bits and why it had a box that was resistant to differential cryptoanalysis even though the term HADN'T EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET

Deep InTheCrack

>>106272306
>NSA glow-ware designed SPECIFICALLY to be weak enough for the NSA to crack but not weak enough for normal people to crack
Sounds like Tor by the way.

>>106272777
If you can read up on the two projects and believe this you should probably get a legal guardian so you can have someone not retarded make important decisions for you.

>>106272306
IBM engineers knew about DC but kepot it a secret. apparently the 56 v 64 bit didn't make a difference on it's security. just what i read. diffusion in DES makes me head spin

>>106264143
NATO still trust AES-256 enough to cypher classified data, at the present time. So, probably not.

>>106264143
>>106269889
No.
A backdoor would have to be in the S-boxes. There were criticisms regarding the GF(8) curve seed used for the S-box, but there has not been any practical break on that because GF(8) has good non-linearity.

If any schizo want to disarm any potential backdoor by the NSA, they just need to change the S-box. All other steps are there to create randomness in the ciphertext, there is no way for that to be backdoored without it being super obvious by entropy analysis.

>>106275187
*GF(2), sorry.

>>106275187
the s-boxes are known though.

if you tried to use a funny name like that now there'd be death threats in your inbox, blue hairs picketing outside the building, and a slate magazine article calling you hitler 2.0

>>106269246
Nothing really. DES was just inherently insecure, mainly due to the small key-zize which was 56-bit. The minimum size keys that are used in encrypting anything important these days are at least 256-bit which would need 2^200 or ~10^60 times more powerful hardware to crack it at the same the time.

>>106263392 (OP)
>>In 1998... the EFF
does EFF do anything anymore? It really doesn't feel like they're winning these past few years.
Did they become a captured entity/asset, or did they go bankrupt, or just give up or give in? What's their deal? What happened to them?

>>106281882
It used to be, the techbros would stand up against civil liberties infringements. Now tho, it is the techbros who are most guilty of such. Not enough of picrel, Wozniak, etc around anymore, and too many cunts like Thiel, Zuckerberg and Musk. All of whom should be dropped down a fucking well.