Wikileaks posts huge encrypted file - Polidicks

It's probably an Outlook Express database with 2 emails in it that went corrupt and bloated in size. Happens all the time, and they're filing an insurance claim about it over loss of productivity due to inaccessible email databases.

Dunno if this has been linked to yet in this thread, but its a TED talk by Julian Assange a few weeks ago, its very interesting (and funny in a couple of places). [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do[/media]

[QUOTE=RacistRace;23883350]Virtually impossible to crack my ass. Its easy to decode shit like this. TOO EASY.[/QUOTE] Alright, get started.

[QUOTE=Swilly;23869883]Does the invasion of Georgia ring a bell?[/QUOTE] Can you rephrase that? Because to me it seems like you're saying Russia invaded Georgia like America invaded Iraq. Which is wrong, because Georgia invaded South Ossetia and Russia came in to protect it.

[QUOTE=RacistRace;23883350]Virtually impossible to crack my ass. Its easy to decode shit like this. TOO EASY.[/QUOTE] AES256 has never been cracked. Ever. Good fucking luck, pal.

the file is actually all furry porn and everyone who downloaded it will get super pissed if america's government does something wrong

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;23883872]Can you rephrase that? Because to me it seems like you're saying Russia invaded Georgia like America invaded Iraq. Which is wrong, because Georgia invaded South Ossetia and Russia came in to protect it.[/QUOTE] But South Ossetia is Georgian territory...

[QUOTE=ohadje;23884260]But South Ossetia is Georgian territory...[/QUOTE] De-facto independent territory recognized by russia

I support wikileaks, but some of the stuff they put up there goes too far [editline]01:27AM[/editline] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;23883944]AES256 has never been cracked. Ever. Good fucking luck, pal.[/QUOTE] it wouldn't be all that hard to crack it, probably. it's just that by the time it's cracked, the information will be irrelevant anyway.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;23884566]It would take 3.1 x 10^53 years to try every single password combination. That is 310000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. Not hard? :raise:[/QUOTE] You're taking that number out of context. What computation per unit of time ratio is this based on? lol, I'm sure quantum computing could handle this no problem. Certainly none of these clowns could undertake such a project, but it is feasible.

[QUOTE=newbs;23884627]You're taking that number out of context. What computation per unit of time ratio is this based on? lol, I'm sure quantum computing could handle this no problem. Certainly none of these clowns could undertake such a project, but it is feasible.[/QUOTE] As well, the amount of people trying to crack it cuts the time down.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;23884566]It would take 3.1 x 10^53 years to try every single password combination. That is 310000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. Not hard? :raise:[/QUOTE] Password? Encryption doesn't use a password, it uses a key.

What do you morons not get about it being a 256 bit hex key? You. Can't. Break. It. With any foreseeable tech (disregarding your quantum computer magic) it's impossible. The only possible method in a case like this with no clues as to what the encryption key or pattern is, is brute forcing, and multiple people have shown how long that would theoretically take. Stop talking out your asses like you understand even a little bit of cryptography and realize that it's not gonna happen and you saying "herp durp lez get a buncha computars togetha and try and crack it!" is idiotic. Unless someone somehow discovers a pattern or a backdoor to AES256 encryption, it will never happen.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;23884566]It would take 3.1 x 10^53 years to try every single password combination. That is 310000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. Not hard? :raise:[/QUOTE] not hard as in it would take very little effort to do, like I said, the information will be irrelevant by the time the key is cracked

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23885081]not hard[B] as in it would take very little effort to do[/B], like I said, the information will be irrelevant by the time the key is cracked[/QUOTE] Every single computing device running at maximum capacity for the rest of the foreseeable life of the universe, NOT TOO HARD EH?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23885121]Every single computing device running at maximum capacity for the rest of the foreseeable life of the universe, NOT TOO HARD EH?[/QUOTE] It's time consuming, not hard.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23885121]Every single computing device running at maximum capacity for the rest of the foreseeable life of the universe, NOT TOO HARD EH?[/QUOTE] you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. everything done by the user will be extremely simple. it's what the computer is doing that takes forever [editline]02:02AM[/editline] oh and btw, they said the same thing about DES encryption

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23885215]you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. everything done by the user will be extremely simple. it's what the computer is doing that takes forever [editline]02:02AM[/editline] [B]oh and btw, they said the same thing about DES encryption[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]DES is now considered to be insecure for many applications. This is chiefly due to the 56-bit key size being too small[/QUOTE]256 is a tad bit larger than 56. The reason it's easy to crack with modern computers is because computers now are much, much faster than computers in 1976 in a way that can directly affect this. Cracking a 56 bit key through brute force takes about a day now, though even now that requires clusters of really powerful CPUs. There was never a theoretical problem with cracking it, the technology just wasn't feasible back when it was invented. That's totally different from 256 bit keys, where we could have 10000x faster computers and it would still be pretty much impossible due to the shear size of possible keys.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23885358]That's totally different from 256 bit keys, where we could have 10000x faster computers and it would still be pretty much impossible due to the shear size of possible keys.[/QUOTE] they said the same about DES

[QUOTE=ohadje;23884260]But South Ossetia is Georgian territory...[/QUOTE] There was a revolution in the region. They broke off and tried to join Russia. When Georgia attacked, Russia was protecting them.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23885401]they said the same about DES[/QUOTE] The person above just explained this, it was insecure due to the size of the key.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23885401]they said the same about DES[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]256 is a tad bit larger than 56. The reason it's easy to crack with modern computers is because computers now are much, much faster than computers in 1976 in a way that can directly affect this. Cracking a 56 bit key through brute force takes about a day now, though even now that requires clusters of really powerful CPUs. There was never a theoretical problem with cracking it, the technology just wasn't feasible back when it was invented[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/downs.gif[/img_thumb] You know nothing about this, stop acting like this is a simple "more power, easier break" situation.

Also, congratulations Wikileaks. If somebody cracks and leaks this, and it turns out to be highly sensitive information, then they are responsible for the deaths of US soldiers as well as Afghan civilians.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;23885491]Also, congratulations Wikileaks. If somebody cracks and leaks this, and it turns out to be highly sensitive information, then they are responsible for the deaths of US soldiers as well as Afghan civilians.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks are not responsible, if anyone its the person who handed it to wikileaks.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;23885491]Also, congratulations Wikileaks. If somebody cracks and leaks this, and it turns out to be highly sensitive information, then they are responsible for the deaths of US soldiers as well as Afghan civilians.[/QUOTE] Shut up. You're a dumb flag waving nationalist.

I wonder how many people know the password. If only the one guy knows and he gets assassinated/sent to prison/other horrible things, I doubt he would have access to the internet or a phone. So someone else must know.

[QUOTE=Ericsson;23869630]Did you mean get millions of computers to guess what [b]256bit long[/b] key is[/QUOTE] Uh, didn't they already crack AES1024?

hopefully it's just useless data.

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23886185]Uh, didn't they already crack AES1024?[/QUOTE] You probably mixed it up with [url=http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/09/1024-bit-rsa-encryption-cracked-by-carefully-starving-cpu-of-ele/]RSA1024[/url]. I don't think anyone has managed to crack even AES128 yet.

Sorry if someone mentioned some of this, but heres some thoughts I had while reading this thread. - As far as the dead hand goes, there are numerous ways to fool proof it. For instance, maybe if the personal friends of Assange don't see him for a regularly scheduled visit, bam, release it. - All you fuckers are still talking about brute force. Keep this in mind; By the time some magical computer/s come to crack it, the information would probably be irrelevant (i.e We move out of the middle east or w/e). - Excuse my ignorance of exacly how encryption works, but if a computer was invented to brute the AES method, what happens if the method is updated to, say, 10 times as long a key. Hell, they could just keep adding on to it, even gigibyte long keys if that is possible for encryption. - I think the largest problem in breaking it, as someone mentioned before, is knowing what the fuck you're looking at. Maybe they add in a ton of buffer/crap data to throw off the checker. I know their supercomputers can't check the whole file for every attempt. Hell, maybe there is only 50 picture/txt files of extreme importance in the middle of the file, surrounded by crap values.