1 |
Chris Walters <cjw2004d@×××××××.net> at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 22:25:18 |
2 |
> Are you a cryptology expert? |
3 |
|
4 |
Are you then? |
5 |
|
6 |
> The only thing that cryptography attempts to do is reduce the |
7 |
> **probability** of cracking the key and gaining access to the data as low |
8 |
> as possible. |
9 |
|
10 |
No news. That's, why cryptology defines "security" not as "being impossible |
11 |
to crack", but as "being sufficiently improbable to crack". The only |
12 |
cipher, that can't be "brute-forced", is the OTP, which is |
13 |
considered "perfectly secure". |
14 |
|
15 |
> As for brute forcing a passphrase: Since most implementations of AES |
16 |
> (Rijndael) use a hash of the passphrase to form the key, it amounts to |
17 |
> the same thing, in practice, as cracking the key. |
18 |
|
19 |
First of all, you can perform hard disk encryption _without_ a passphrase. |
20 |
You can store keyfiles on smart cards, usb sticks, etc. In this case, you |
21 |
can generate a _truely random_ key. |
22 |
|
23 |
Using a passphrase is the most insecure approach, but still, with a |
24 |
sufficiently random passphrase, you can gain a level of security, that even |
25 |
the NSA will find difficult to come around. |
26 |
|
27 |
The randomness of a 30-char passphrase does of course by far not match the |
28 |
randomness of a 256-bit key, so there is a real chance, that it can be |
29 |
guessed by brute force. Still it will take much cpu time, which is not |
30 |
endless, even to the NSA. |
31 |
|
32 |
In such a case, the question is, if the data, you ciphered, is really worth |
33 |
the effort of putting a super computer into work for a long time to try any |
34 |
possible passphrase. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Cryptology is, at least partly about finding the weakest link, because |
37 |
> that is what is likely to be attacked in any cryptosystem. |
38 |
|
39 |
Of course, absolutely true. Hard disk encryption is by far not perfect, |
40 |
just look at the cold boot attacks that gained public interest in the last |
41 |
time. But you didn't talk of _cryptosystems_ in your previous posts, you |
42 |
did talk about _algorithms_. |
43 |
|
44 |
Summarizing, the modern ciphers themselves are secure, as there is mostly no |
45 |
way to crack them save a brute-force attack on the key. On the other hand, |
46 |
cryptosystems built around these algorithms can of course contain |
47 |
weaknesses and holes, like weak passphrases, unsecure key storage, etc. |
48 |
|
49 |
> The US Government only keeps classified information on non-networked |
50 |
> computers in secure environments, so the cipher used does not matter as |
51 |
> much as the other security measures taken to ensure that the data does |
52 |
> not fall into the wrong hands. |
53 |
|
54 |
May be. I do not know, which restrictions apply to US classified data, I |
55 |
only know about official statements, the US government made towards the |
56 |
security of AES. |
57 |
|
58 |
> A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are |
59 |
> *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does |
60 |
> have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed |
61 |
> or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you |
62 |
> may think. |
63 |
|
64 |
You can use simple mathematics to find out, that even the largest super |
65 |
computers, having one peta flop, needs millions of years to perform an |
66 |
exhaustive search through AES key space. |
67 |
|
68 |
Anyway, you may believe, what you want to believe, I'm just reflecting, what |
69 |
real experts like Bruce Schneier have been telling for years: It's wrong |
70 |
to trust into simple ciphers, but it's equally wrong, to believe, that |
71 |
anything can be broken. |
72 |
|
73 |
my 2 cents |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. |
77 |
(Rosa Luxemburg) |