Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350990 > unrolled thread

LOL underestimated

Started byowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
First post2016-04-20 15:10 +0000
Last post2016-04-21 16:26 +0000
Articles 16 on this page of 36 — 6 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 15:10 +0000
    Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 16:55 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:25 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:45 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:47 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:05 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-25 19:07 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 21:16 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0200
    Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 19:19 +0200
      Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:34 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:31 +0200
          Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:13 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:20 +0200
              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:29 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 14:33 -0700
                  Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:58 +0200
                  Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:04 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:25 +0200
              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:41 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                  Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:06 +0000
                    Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 08:54 +0200
                      Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 17:12 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                  Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:51 +0200
                    Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:59 +0200
                      Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:10 +0000
                        Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:11 +0200
                          Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:19 +0000
                            Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:57 +0200
                              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 00:07 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 23:17 -0400
          Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:49 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 10:27 -0400
              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 16:26 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#351065

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
Message-ID<nf8tc6$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#351063
owl wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> >   
>>> >> 
>>> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>>> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>>> >>   
>>> > 
>>> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>>> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>>> 
>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>>> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>>> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>>> I'm generating).
>>> 
>> 
>> If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>> solution...
> 
> Length of what?
> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?

There is none. The MD5 collisions just give another set of data which will 
return the same MD5 hash. You don't get a peek at the original data

For that very reason linux packages protected by MD5 are still safe, because 
a "forged" package would not be runable in any way. There is no way to alter 
a program (with the intent of introducing malware) and expecting to get the 
original MD5 hash. All the supercomputers existing don't have enough time to 
compute that before crumbling to rust and sand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351075

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-20 22:06 +0000
Message-ID<ghjdu03.a09uh3@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351065
Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> owl wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >   
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>>>> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>>>> >>   
>>>> > 
>>>> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>>>> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>>>> 
>>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>>>> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>>>> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>>>> I'm generating).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>>> solution...
>> 
>> Length of what?
>> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
>> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
> 
> There is none. The MD5 collisions just give another set of data which will 
> return the same MD5 hash. You don't get a peek at the original data
> 
> For that very reason linux packages protected by MD5 are still safe, because 
> a "forged" package would not be runable in any way. There is no way to alter 
> a program (with the intent of introducing malware) and expecting to get the 
> original MD5 hash. All the supercomputers existing don't have enough time to 
> compute that before crumbling to rust and sand

So would you say that the approach I'm taking, i.e. a lookup table, is
the best approach?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351114

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2016-04-21 08:54 +0200
Message-ID<nf9t9g$6n5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#351075
owl wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> owl wrote:
>> 
>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> >   
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>>>>> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>>>>> >>   
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>>>>> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>>>>> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>>>>> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>>>>> I'm generating).
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>>>> solution...
>>> 
>>> Length of what?
>>> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
>>> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
>> 
>> There is none. The MD5 collisions just give another set of data which
>> will return the same MD5 hash. You don't get a peek at the original data
>> 
>> For that very reason linux packages protected by MD5 are still safe,
>> because a "forged" package would not be runable in any way. There is no
>> way to alter a program (with the intent of introducing malware) and
>> expecting to get the original MD5 hash. All the supercomputers existing
>> don't have enough time to compute that before crumbling to rust and sand
> 
> So would you say that the approach I'm taking, i.e. a lookup table, is
> the best approach?

Maybe

It /might/ be that it is possible for data of very small size (for example 
IP addresses) to generate collisions and compare the resulting IP. Since 
those are restricted to a well defined format and range (in IP4 at least, 
IP6 is already much larger) it may be possible, although I doubt that it is 
worth the expense in time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351162

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-21 17:12 +0000
Message-ID<fhjgoe03.afaa3@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351114
Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> owl wrote:
> 
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> owl wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> >   
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>>>>>> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>>>>>> >>   
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>>>>>> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>>>>>> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>>>>>> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>>>>>> I'm generating).
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>>>>> solution...
>>>> 
>>>> Length of what?
>>>> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
>>>> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
>>> 
>>> There is none. The MD5 collisions just give another set of data which
>>> will return the same MD5 hash. You don't get a peek at the original data
>>> 
>>> For that very reason linux packages protected by MD5 are still safe,
>>> because a "forged" package would not be runable in any way. There is no
>>> way to alter a program (with the intent of introducing malware) and
>>> expecting to get the original MD5 hash. All the supercomputers existing
>>> don't have enough time to compute that before crumbling to rust and sand
>> 
>> So would you say that the approach I'm taking, i.e. a lookup table, is
>> the best approach?
> 
> Maybe
> 
> It /might/ be that it is possible for data of very small size (for example 
> IP addresses) to generate collisions and compare the resulting IP. Since 
> those are restricted to a well defined format and range (in IP4 at least, 
> IP6 is already much larger) it may be possible, although I doubt that it is 
> worth the expense in time

I assume you're talking about the algorithm Melzzzzz mentioned.
I take it that given the hash, the algorithm would take a dictionary
of small strings and determine colliding values and hope that one
of them was an IP address?

I checked for the source code that's at the site Melzzzz linked.
One was Win32 and required conio.h

Another was c++ and failed to compile because it couldn't find
some boost "filesystem" file.  I installed libboost-filesystem1.55.0
and still got the error.

I'm mainly interested in how it works, not so much from a mathematical
angle as from the standpoint of the user.  IOW, what prerequisites
do you need in terms of dictionary file, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351066

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
Message-ID<20160420235021.4a95a738@maxa-pc>
In reply to#351063
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >     
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over
> >> >> the entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
> >> >>     
> >> > 
> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute    
> >> 
> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all
> >> attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which
> >> is what I'm generating).
> >>   
> > 
> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
> > solution...  
> 
> Length of what?
> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash? 
> 

look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash value. Got
it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351068

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2016-04-20 23:51 +0200
Message-ID<nf8tf0$f5c$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#351066
Melzzzzz wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >   
>> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >     
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over
>> >> >> the entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>> >> >>     
>> >> > 
>> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>> >> 
>> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
>> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all
>> >> attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which
>> >> is what I'm generating).
>> >>   
>> > 
>> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>> > solution...
>> 
>> Length of what?
>> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
>> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
>> 
> 
> look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash value. Got
> it?

Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original data. Which 
makes it sort of pointless

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351071

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2016-04-20 23:59 +0200
Message-ID<20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc>
In reply to#351068
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >     
> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >       
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash
> >> >> >> over the entire address space (those eight small windows in
> >> >> >> the vid). 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute  
> >> >> 
> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all
> >> >> attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes
> >> >> (which is what I'm generating).
> >> >>     
> >> > 
> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
> >> > solution...  
> >> 
> >> Length of what?
> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
> >> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
> >>   
> > 
> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash value.
> > Got it?  
> 
> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original data.
> Which makes it sort of pointless

If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I really
doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5 hash...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351077

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-20 22:10 +0000
Message-ID<ghjdi03.a0h3b4428@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351071
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >   
>> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
>> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >     
>> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
>> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >       
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash
>> >> >> >> over the entire address space (those eight small windows in
>> >> >> >> the vid). 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute  
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
>> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all
>> >> >> attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes
>> >> >> (which is what I'm generating).
>> >> >>     
>> >> > 
>> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>> >> > solution...  
>> >> 
>> >> Length of what?
>> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
>> >> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
>> >>   
>> > 
>> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash value.
>> > Got it?  
>> 
>> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original data.
>> Which makes it sort of pointless
> 
> If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I really
> doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5 hash...
> 

Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
for comparison with the given hash, right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351078

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2016-04-21 00:11 +0200
Message-ID<20160421001155.68313d39@maxa-pc>
In reply to#351077
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >   
> >> Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>   
> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >     
> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:    
> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >       
> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:    
> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >         
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash
> >> >> >> >> over the entire address space (those eight small windows
> >> >> >> >> in the vid).   
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
> >> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a
> >> >> >> > Minute    
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
> >> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that
> >> >> >> all attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of
> >> >> >> hashes (which is what I'm generating).
> >> >> >>       
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
> >> >> > solution...    
> >> >> 
> >> >> Length of what?
> >> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the
> >> >> described approach can reveal the original input given only the
> >> >> known hash? 
> >> > 
> >> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash
> >> > value. Got it?    
> >> 
> >> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original
> >> data. Which makes it sort of pointless  
> > 
> > If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I really
> > doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5 hash...
> >   
> 
> Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
> becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
> for comparison with the given hash, right?
> 

No, search for collisions of particular length. I didn't look up
program but it is only useful with known source length, so I guess if
you can limit solution on this algorihtm you can quickly find you ip
address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351079

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-20 22:19 +0000
Message-ID<hjgda0.jkga9@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351078
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >   
>> >> Melzzzzz wrote:
>> >>   
>> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >     
>> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:    
>> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >       
>> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:    
>> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >         
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash
>> >> >> >> >> over the entire address space (those eight small windows
>> >> >> >> >> in the vid).   
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>> >> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a
>> >> >> >> > Minute    
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
>> >> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that
>> >> >> >> all attacks against a hash still require a dictionary of
>> >> >> >> hashes (which is what I'm generating).
>> >> >> >>       
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>> >> >> > solution...    
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Length of what?
>> >> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the
>> >> >> described approach can reveal the original input given only the
>> >> >> known hash? 
>> >> > 
>> >> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash
>> >> > value. Got it?    
>> >> 
>> >> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original
>> >> data. Which makes it sort of pointless  
>> > 
>> > If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I really
>> > doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5 hash...
>> >   
>> 
>> Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
>> becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
>> for comparison with the given hash, right?
>> 
> 
> No, search for collisions of particular length. I didn't look up
> program but it is only useful with known source length, so I guess if
> you can limit solution on this algorihtm you can quickly find you ip
> address.
> 

Isn't that a contradiction of what you just said?  "I really doubt that
you can get two different ip addresses for the same md5 hash".  The definition
of a collision is that the same hash is generated by two different inputs.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, Melzzzzz.  I just don't understand how
collision generation is relevant to the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351083

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2016-04-21 00:57 +0200
Message-ID<20160421005714.43d640ba@maxa-pc>
In reply to#351079
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
> >> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >     
> >> >> Melzzzzz wrote:
> >> >>     
> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >       
> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:      
> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >         
> >> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:      
> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
> >> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >           
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular
> >> >> >> >> >> hash over the entire address space (those eight small
> >> >> >> >> >> windows in the vid).     
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
> >> >> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a
> >> >> >> >> > Minute      
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
> >> >> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume
> >> >> >> >> that all attacks against a hash still require a
> >> >> >> >> dictionary of hashes (which is what I'm generating).
> >> >> >> >>         
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have
> >> >> >> > probable solution...      
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Length of what?
> >> >> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the
> >> >> >> described approach can reveal the original input given only
> >> >> >> the known hash?   
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash
> >> >> > value. Got it?      
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original
> >> >> data. Which makes it sort of pointless    
> >> > 
> >> > If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I
> >> > really doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5
> >> > hash... 
> >> 
> >> Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
> >> becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
> >> for comparison with the given hash, right?
> >>   
> > 
> > No, search for collisions of particular length. I didn't look up
> > program but it is only useful with known source length, so I guess
> > if you can limit solution on this algorihtm you can quickly find
> > you ip address.
> >   
> 
> Isn't that a contradiction of what you just said?  "I really doubt
> that you can get two different ip addresses for the same md5 hash".

No it means when you find one collision you found solution...
This algo is good for cracking md5 hashed passwords, it's good for your
problem as well...
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351090

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-21 00:07 +0000
Message-ID<fhgjdk903.af@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351083
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >   
>> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:  
>> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
>> >> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >     
>> >> >> Melzzzzz wrote:
>> >> >>     
>> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >       
>> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:      
>> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >         
>> >> >> >> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:      
>> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> >> >> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >           
>> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular
>> >> >> >> >> >> hash over the entire address space (those eight small
>> >> >> >> >> >> windows in the vid).     
>> >> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>> >> >> >> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a
>> >> >> >> >> > Minute      
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating
>> >> >> >> >> collision pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume
>> >> >> >> >> that all attacks against a hash still require a
>> >> >> >> >> dictionary of hashes (which is what I'm generating).
>> >> >> >> >>         
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have
>> >> >> >> > probable solution...      
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Length of what?
>> >> >> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the
>> >> >> >> described approach can reveal the original input given only
>> >> >> >> the known hash?   
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash
>> >> >> > value. Got it?      
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original
>> >> >> data. Which makes it sort of pointless    
>> >> > 
>> >> > If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I
>> >> > really doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5
>> >> > hash... 
>> >> 
>> >> Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
>> >> becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
>> >> for comparison with the given hash, right?
>> >>   
>> > 
>> > No, search for collisions of particular length. I didn't look up
>> > program but it is only useful with known source length, so I guess
>> > if you can limit solution on this algorihtm you can quickly find
>> > you ip address.
>> >   
>> 
>> Isn't that a contradiction of what you just said?  "I really doubt
>> that you can get two different ip addresses for the same md5 hash".
> 
> No it means when you find one collision you found solution...


A collision with what?


> This algo is good for cracking md5 hashed passwords, it's good for your
> problem as well...
>> 
> 

How does it do that without a dictionary?

I still don't understand how a collision helps.
IOW, even if "blah" and "foo" both collide producing the same hash,
how does knowing only the hash tell me anything?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351110

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2016-04-20 23:17 -0400
Message-ID<nf9gib$6c1$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#351022
On 4/20/2016 1:34 PM, owl wrote:


> So, I am creating an md5 lookup table for all IPv4 addresses.
> That will take several months to create what will be about
> 200GB file in the format I'm using:


Hardcore stalking /freak/!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351111

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-21 03:49 +0000
Message-ID<tuo0aa.fko@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351110
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 1:34 PM, owl wrote:
> 
> 
>> So, I am creating an md5 lookup table for all IPv4 addresses.
>> That will take several months to create what will be about
>> 200GB file in the format I'm using:
> 
> 
> Hardcore stalking /freak/!
> 

Don't worry.  I'm not going to post yours or flatfish+++ even
if it gets a match.  The thing's tying up my computer so much
I doubt I'll even let it finish.  If I had another machine
with a big enough drive I'd set it to work and not care, but
this is a laptop and I'm using an iffy WD USB drive to hold
the file.  Not sure I want to risk it. Interesting project
anyway.  Maybe one for the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351140

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2016-04-21 10:27 -0400
Message-ID<nfanpl$2hl$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#351111
On 4/20/2016 11:49 PM, owl wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 4/20/2016 1:34 PM, owl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, I am creating an md5 lookup table for all IPv4 addresses.
>>> That will take several months to create what will be about
>>> 200GB file in the format I'm using:
>>
>>
>> Hardcore stalking /freak/!
>>
>
> Don't worry.  I'm not going to post yours or flatfish+++ even
> if it gets a match.  The thing's tying up my computer so much
> I doubt I'll even let it finish.  If I had another machine
> with a big enough drive I'd set it to work and not care, but
> this is a laptop and I'm using an iffy WD USB drive to hold
> the file.  Not sure I want to risk it. Interesting project
> anyway.  Maybe one for the future.


Here's the posting-host from the injection info in one of my eternal-sep 
posts:  5399b1c4ae39fc7dd2f40cbc5f70036e

What IP does your code generate from it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351157

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2016-04-21 16:26 +0000
Message-ID<ghjd00aa.arf@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#351140
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 11:49 PM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2016 1:34 PM, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, I am creating an md5 lookup table for all IPv4 addresses.
>>>> That will take several months to create what will be about
>>>> 200GB file in the format I'm using:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hardcore stalking /freak/!
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry.  I'm not going to post yours or flatfish+++ even
>> if it gets a match.  The thing's tying up my computer so much
>> I doubt I'll even let it finish.  If I had another machine
>> with a big enough drive I'd set it to work and not care, but
>> this is a laptop and I'm using an iffy WD USB drive to hold
>> the file.  Not sure I want to risk it. Interesting project
>> anyway.  Maybe one for the future.
> 
> 
> Here's the posting-host from the injection info in one of my eternal-sep 
> posts:  5399b1c4ae39fc7dd2f40cbc5f70036e
> 
> What IP does your code generate from it?
> 
 
It doesn't.  I turned it off.  It would if I let it run for ~90 days
and had a map file of IP -> md5(IP) for all IPv4 addresses, assuming
the original string is in exactly that form.

You can tell me if it *does* represent an ip address in that form
by running:

echo -n "your.ip.address" | md5sum

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web