Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me too but this can never be sold right
What, Wired Magazine won't buy this for $3 Million?
I meant solved...
Passwordle
241–250 of 263 posts
Re: Passwordle
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a cryptographic break. It's simply a regular password cracking algorithm, but with instead of knowing the full hash, you only know a partial hash. It should be viable, even without rainbow tables. That's why plain, unsalted sha256 is very unsafe for password storage.
It is not in the slightest bit viable. You’re seeking to reverse a one-way hash function. Knowing the full hash does not help you to find the original password; password cracking algorithms don’t work by reversing the hash, but by trying zillions of passwords, following typical human password patterns to increase the probability of success, and possibly using rainbow tables as precalculated hashess, until they find s…
But we don't need to reverse the one way hash. The goal is simply to find the original password and brute forcing is good enough.
The brute forcing algorithm doesn't care that you only have a partial hash. All that does is increase the chances of collisions. (Side note, rainbow tables might care, I'm not sure how suitable they are for wildcard hash matches)
For example, I burned 8 guesses and I got enough greens to give me 108 bits of the hash. You can scrape out a bit more entropy by processing the yellows and greys, but 108 bits is more than enough to identify the password with very little chance of collisions (the chance of collisions hits only hits 50% once you get to 17 character alphanumeric+symbol passwords).
You can then use the two remaining guesses to resolve any collisions and lock in the correct answer.
Re: Passwordle
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because the algo is known, it is SHA256. The thing is you don't know the length of the password. It could be more than the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, or 12. You still have to brute force or look up one possible solution (or collision thereof). The whole thing just shows that a hash makes ZERO applicable inferable assertions about the message (password). Thats the definition of evenly distributed h…
I mean, anything past 256 bits is going to have a collision, so that doesn't matter, but you're right that the entire point of a hash is that even if you know the hash, it's very very hard to find what the plaintext is.
It's true that any input length larger than 256 bits will exhibit a collision. It isn't true that it will necessarily exhibit every possible output. Maybe there's an output value that is only available for ridiculously large input.
Re: Passwordle
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There are two layers of entropy in what I'm looking at, but I only got like two hours of sleep last night.
There's the entropy of the password from which the hash is generated, which is clearly what you're addressing.
But in the game I'm seeing, the hash itself is unknown but the game gives you feedback on the contents. So pinning characters of the hash cuts down on that search space. Then there's still the matter of finding a plaintext that hashes to that value, which as you've said should evade this sort of analysis.
Re: Passwordle
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Try yourself with a, b, c, d, e, f, g as guesses. You will see that green letters that are coincident will be the same. So to reconstruct the original SHA256 of the password is easy. The problem then turns like every other hash -> password reconstruction: hard if the original secret is hard to guess via dictionary/brute-force, otherwise easy.
Ah, I misunderstood the point you were making. It's still true that each hash won't help you make the next password guess, but you can iteratively fill in parts of the overall hash. I'm not sure that really helps you much though, as you don't have enough guesses to get the entire hash. And even with that, you may or may not succeed. Still, good point!
You just need a rainbow table of... 14 character... random passwords... across the allowed symbols. Should be able to build that with Cuda, OpenCL, or OpenMPI in a matter of X weeks given Y hardware budget. Sorry, solving for X and Y is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: Passwordle
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or use a new password every day like worle. So you have a community effort to guess it
Is any of the information (yellow/green for characters) presented getting you closer to the real answer in any meaningful way though?
It reduces the search space to find the hash, but not the search space of what hashes to that value.
Re: Passwordle
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thanks for that, I really enjoyed it. Thats a very imaginative short game
Re: Passwordle
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quantum computer could potentially turn it from impossible to merely nearly impossible.
how so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm
If it works as believed, it should effectively reduce solving SHA-256 to solving SHA-128. Which is extremely difficult, but theoretically possible.
Re: Passwordle
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://youtu.be/5oyZJDBUzWc?t=252
Thanks! I’ve never seen that film :)