Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because winners know when not to play.
That means quitters are winners?
No, winners never quit.
Have to be true to your axioms.
Passwordle
231–240 of 263 posts
Re: Passwordle
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
One more trick: Add a conditional breakpoint with the condition: `value = "someOverrideValue", false` to make the breakpoint change the value when it is reached without actually stopping execution. Great for when you need state changed but the app is always trying to override it. Here's a video from a talk I gave five years ago that demonstrates that: https://youtu.be/uixXOTCNbhs?t=1182
Woah. Now that is incredibly useful.
It's also used by malicious websites that don't like security researchers looking at their source, just to say.
Re: Passwordle
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
The digest is 64 characters long, so on average you should get 4 positions where your guess and the digest are the same, which would narrow it down to (1/16)*4 of the possibilities, corresponding to "peeling off" 16 bits of entropy. Figuring out how to enumerate only those values which generate a hex digest that matches the known characters in the hash is left as an exercise for the reader.
You may be trolling, but that "exercise for the reader" does not have a known solution. Anyone who found one may wish to keep it secret to get rich on Bitcoin mining...
I think he meant to do it offline via brute force, then entering it
Re: Passwordle
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be trolling, but that "exercise for the reader" does not have a known solution. Anyone who found one may wish to keep it secret to get rich on Bitcoin mining...
I think he meant to do it offline via brute force, then entering it
The same applies. You can't "pin" part of the hash when attempting a brute-force - that's part of what it means to be a cryptographic hash function.
Re: Passwordle
#235Someone more capable than I should make the final form of this: No green or yellow feedback is provided, but only the timing information used to calculate it. If cryptographers are serious about side-channel attacks, why not show off the danger using no-information Wordle? (edit: Absurdle was taken)
An Absurdle exists[1], but instead of giving no hints it is adversarial, e.g. changing the secret word to dodge your guesses. [1] https://qntm.org/files/absurdle/absurdle.html
If you like this, you might like Quantum Childminding too: https://www.puzzlescript.net/play.html?p=f7712f978d624c66f1f...
It's about looking after Schrodinger's daughter; similar to the above, she appears only if you prove she cannot be anywhere else.
I like this game a lot, especially how it's easy to understand & fun to play with.
Re: Passwordle
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the first guess "peel off" 14 bits of entropy?
The digest is 64 characters long, so on average you should get 4 positions where your guess and the digest are the same, which would narrow it down to (1/16)*4 of the possibilities, corresponding to "peeling off" 16 bits of entropy. Figuring out how to enumerate only those values which generate a hex digest that matches the known characters in the hash is left as an exercise for the reader.
> Figuring out how to enumerate only those values which generate a hex digest that matches the known characters in the hash is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's always bothered me that the standard security jargon for an oracle for some information is to call it "enumeration". Will your service confirm whether or not a particular email address is associated with a current account? User enumeration!
In my view, it's only enumeration if I can make the service give me the email address without me having to know the address independently. :/
Re: Passwordle
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. In a secure hash function, all output bits are without bias. So all combinations exist.
Sounds like the ideal. Can we prove that sha256 has this property?
Probably not. The point of a cryptographic hash function is to be resistant to analysis.
Can we prove it has the much simpler property that toggling one bit of the input will, on average, toggle half of the bits in the output? (Probably not.)
Re: Passwordle
#238Someone more capable than I should make the final form of this: No green or yellow feedback is provided, but only the timing information used to calculate it. If cryptographers are serious about side-channel attacks, why not show off the danger using no-information Wordle? (edit: Absurdle was taken)
An Absurdle exists[1], but instead of giving no hints it is adversarial, e.g. changing the secret word to dodge your guesses. [1] https://qntm.org/files/absurdle/absurdle.html
Thanks for highlighting this — I’ve been waiting for something else by QNTM! I’ll note he has done this sort of thing before, in the form of HATETRIS [https://qntm.org/hatetris].
Re: Passwordle
#239There is like... four people I know I could send this to who'd laugh, it's so niche. Yet I also laughed out loud when I got how conventionally impossible it is.
It's not impossible. I hear Bruce Schneier got the correct hash on the first try. https://www.schneierfacts.com/ (Sorry for the very HN:ish post, but I feel it's somewhat in the spirit of this story)
Hah!
I don’t get this one, though: https://www.schneierfacts.com/facts/694
Searching for the number gets me Mill’s Constant, but I don’t get the connection to sugar or why it would be repeated.
Re: Passwordle
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It could be more than the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe Not very likely, since the OP wouldn’t be able to hash it. Or he’s secretly demonstrating something much more awesome than Passwordle.
Who said they hashed it? The correct answer is a 256-bit value, and you're trying to guess any string that hashes to that value. Nothing requires that OP generated that value by hashing a string though...
Fair point, I’m just hoping that the author starts from something that could actually be input as an answer (and therefore hashes it at least once).