Xkcd: Encryptic
xkcd.com
Xkcd: Encryptic
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#2>>It was bound to happen eventually. This data theft will enable almost limitless [xkcd.com/792]-style password reuse attacks in the coming weeks. There's only one group that comes out of this looking smart: Everyone who pirated Photoshop.[xkcd.com/792]: http://xkcd.com/792/
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#3Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#4Anyone care to explain the DES misuse to laypeople? And why do some passwords have a salt(?) and some don't?
"Since DES only encrypts in blocks of 64 bits (8 bytes) then encrypting and keeping the length of blocks means that you actually get a very good idea of the length of the password - that is, anything with only one block is a password length between 1 and 8 characters, with two blocks between 9 and 16 characters etc. In addition a password of "1234567812345678" would encrypt into two identical blocks."
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#5Anyone care to explain the DES misuse to laypeople? And why do some passwords have a salt(?) and some don't?
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#6Image tooltip text made me laugh: >>It was bound to happen eventually. This data theft will enable almost limitless [xkcd.com/792]-style password reuse attacks in the coming weeks. There's only one group that comes out of this looking smart: Everyone who pirated Photoshop. [xkcd.com/792]: http://xkcd.com/792/
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#7Anyone care to explain the DES misuse to laypeople? And why do some passwords have a salt(?) and some don't?
ECB mode is just terrible. As well as these suffix problems, I've seen another example where a company used it to encrypt key-value pair cookies. Of course the keys are always the same...so prefixes were guessable too. And wikipedia has a fantastic example of why its stupid for images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECB_mode#Electronic_codebook_.2...
Re: Xkcd: Encryptic
#8Image tooltip text made me laugh: >>It was bound to happen eventually. This data theft will enable almost limitless [xkcd.com/792]-style password reuse attacks in the coming weeks. There's only one group that comes out of this looking smart: Everyone who pirated Photoshop. [xkcd.com/792]: http://xkcd.com/792/
He missed a group of people: any designer who did not entrust their entire professional workflow to a single, for-profit company whose best interests are in moving your workflow in ways that benefit the company over the user. Being dependent on something like Photoshop for your only income is a terrible position to be in, yet it is how I'd describe most designers today.
- depending on the for-profit company
- having disadvantage on the marketplace because of inferior tools
I think the former is often preferable.