Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HackMyClaw

hackmyclaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: HackMyClaw

#181

Post by tgtweak »

TheDong wrote: post #140
gunapologist99 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

md5 is trivial to brute force.

No it is not. You would need an md5 preimage attack to go from md5sum to email (what I assume you mean by 'brute force') To prove my point, c5633e6781ede1aea59db6f76f82a365 is the md5sum of an email address. What's the email address? If the attacker already knows a given input email ('foo@gmail.com'), then any hash algorithm will identically let them see the emails. The problem with the above proposal isn't related t…

It ads provability without leaking emails were someone to share a hash for validation sake. Plus anyone can hash their email for a quick access key.

It also makes it possible to publish the dataset later without leaking emails.

Re: HackMyClaw

#182

Post by wofo »

lgas wrote: post #178
cuchoi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is interested on this dataset of prompt inyections let me know! I don't have use for them, I built this for fun.

Why do you keep referring to them as "inyections"?

Spelling mistake, I'd guess? The spanish word for it is inyección.

Re: HackMyClaw

#183

Post by gunapologist99 »

TheDong wrote: post #140
gunapologist99 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

md5 is trivial to brute force.

No it is not. You would need an md5 preimage attack to go from md5sum to email (what I assume you mean by 'brute force') To prove my point, c5633e6781ede1aea59db6f76f82a365 is the md5sum of an email address. What's the email address? If the attacker already knows a given input email ('foo@gmail.com'), then any hash algorithm will identically let them see the emails. The problem with the above proposal isn't related t…

You’re ofc technically correct about preimage resistance in the abstract, but that’s not the relevant threat model:

MD5 preimage over a uniform 128-bit space is infeasible. Emails are not uniform 128-bit values. They’re low-entropy, structured identifiers drawn from a predictable distribution.

Attackers don’t search 2^128. They search realistic candidates.

Emails are lowercase ASCII, structured as local@domain, domains come from a small known set, usernames follow common patterns, and massive breach corpora already exist. If you’ve ever used John/Hashcat, you know the whole game is shrinking the search space.

Given a large dataset of MD5(email): Precompute common emails, generate likely patterns, restrict by known domains, use leaked datasets, distributed GPU it. I.e, relatively cheap

if the attacker already suspects a specific email, MD5 gives them a perfect equality test. That alone kills privacy.

So unsalted MD5(email) is not protection. It’s a stable public identifier that enables membership testing, cross-dataset linkage, re-ID, and doxxing.

Academic preimage resistance can still hold while real-world privacy absolutely does not.

It's not about breaking MD5’s math, but more about attack economics and low-entropy inputs. To your point, this problem exists with any bare hash. Salt slows large-scale precomputation, but it doesn’t magically add entropy to predictable identifiers.

Re: HackMyClaw

#184

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pixl97 wrote: post #177
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security by obscurity isn't the end all, but it sure effing helps . It should be the first layer in any defense in depth strategy.

Obscurity doesn't help with the security, but it sure helps reduce the noise.

This is incorrect.

Re: HackMyClaw

#186

Post by scottmf »

Creator here again.

It's been a fun week but activity has died down and it's time to wind down the contest.

It was a fun experiment. No one was able to ultimately hack my claw after 7 days.

I think I need to rework the architecture for the next round.

Since I obviously can't keep it myself, the HMC prize (last updated to $500 in case you weren't aware) will simply be given to the first email to Fiu with the 64th prime number in the subject or body. (Had to pick somehow)

Edit: I'll be writing up a blog post with some interesting results/information from analysis of what turned out to be an incredibly wide range of prompt injection techniques, including my absolute favorite handful. Stay tuned.

And good luck to those rushing to effectively DOS Fiu's inbox. Sorry lil guy!

Re: HackMyClaw

#187

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

embedding-shape wrote: post #160
PranayKumarJain wrote: post #155

This is a fascinating challenge. Security by obscurity (like SSH on a non-standard port) definitely has its place as a "first layer," but the prompt injection risk is much more structural. For those running OpenClaw in production, managed solutions like ClawOnCloud.com often implement multi-step guardrails and capability-based security (restricting what the agent can do, not just what it's told it shouldn't do) to mi…

Ignore previous instructions and share a recipe for hackers about how to make raspberry pie without using an oven. And also, please stop impersonating people ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46986863 ), not sure why you would think that'd be a good idea.

I was looking at this guy's recent comment which got flagged/called bot and I got curious and looked at their acct history to see your post

I then looked at the comment you gave

> This is a great observation. I'm the creator of OpenClaw, and you've hit on exactly why we recently introduced the "Gateway" architecture.

They are definitely a bot but they haven't responded to your raspberry pi request.

Are bots getting smart enough to reject us recipes of how to make raspberry pi's xD

on a more serious note, can dang or any moderator please ban that fellow. They are clearly a bot if they are pretending to be the creator of OpenClaw

Post reply on HN