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

Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

media.ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#61

Post by hatsunearu »

dehrmann wrote: post #56
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #39

There is no such thing as AES-1024 specified by NIST. AES is a NIST standard, it has three (and only three) variants: AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256. If you see something other than those three, it's almost certainly proprietary junk. Note that AES is always used in a "mode of operation" to provide any sort of secure encryption. AE-secure modes are AES-SIV, AES-GCM-SIV, AES-OCB, and AES-GCM in decreasing order of safe…

To see how insecure a mode of operation can be, Wikipedia has a picture that was encrypted with ECB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation...

That picture has become some sort of meme of itself (I've heard it referred as "you can see penguins through ECB") because it's so damn popular.

However ECB is a lot worse than "you can see data patterns"--with a chosen plaintext attack (very common scenario in networking and storage applications) any dumbass can decrypt it trivially.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#62

Post by marcosdumay »

ziddoap wrote: post #10

I've yet to see a good definition of what constitutes "military grade encryption" vs. regular old encryption. It generally has the opposite effect, for me at least, in the sense that I avoid any product that advertises "military grade ". Edit: I'm not actually looking for definitions of "military grade encryption", thank-you everyone who tried to explain it though. I work in cybersec, and encryption is encryption. It…

A long time ago, the US government ranked the available encryption algorithm by their security level. The highest level was considered equivalent to military equipment and their people were prohibited from exporting those.

Then a team from Europe published some free software that enabled people to use stronger encryption than the ones on the top rank from the US, and their government stopped with this nonsense. So, the only really "military grade" algorithms are broken stuff from the 90's.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#63

Post by spzb »

Reubensson wrote: post #2

Isn't key derivation function completely separate from aes implementation. I mean you could have used the same broken key derivation with some other aes implementation. Also aes-1024 sounds like some proprietary thingy, not something people should probably trust anyway...

Any time I see encryption described as "military grade" it usually sets of my bullshit detector.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#64

Post by heavenlyblue »

hatsunearu wrote: post #61
dehrmann wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To see how insecure a mode of operation can be, Wikipedia has a picture that was encrypted with ECB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation...

That picture has become some sort of meme of itself (I've heard it referred as "you can see penguins through ECB") because it's so damn popular. However ECB is a lot worse than "you can see data patterns"--with a chosen plaintext attack (very common scenario in networking and storage applications) any dumbass can decrypt it trivially.

> with a chosen plaintext attack (very common scenario in networking and storage applications) any dumbass can decrypt it trivially.

No you can’t get decryption key using chosen plaintext attack with AES.

Read here: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1512/why-is-aes-r...

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#65

Post by jupp0r »

crest wrote: post #47
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #39

There is no such thing as AES-1024 specified by NIST. AES is a NIST standard, it has three (and only three) variants: AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256. If you see something other than those three, it's almost certainly proprietary junk. Note that AES is always used in a "mode of operation" to provide any sort of secure encryption. AE-secure modes are AES-SIV, AES-GCM-SIV, AES-OCB, and AES-GCM in decreasing order of safe…

The bullshit "AES-1024" is quoted from the product description and repeated in the title as clickbait.

The title is funny, they even intentionally put "military grade" in there to make the sarcasm even more apparent. This is different from click bait, which I see as an intentional dark pattern.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#66

Post by Closi »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #39

There is no such thing as AES-1024 specified by NIST. AES is a NIST standard, it has three (and only three) variants: AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256. If you see something other than those three, it's almost certainly proprietary junk. Note that AES is always used in a "mode of operation" to provide any sort of secure encryption. AE-secure modes are AES-SIV, AES-GCM-SIV, AES-OCB, and AES-GCM in decreasing order of safe…

The company who wrote the software are in the presentation and explain this - 192 / 256 could not be used because of export restrictions, so AES-128 is actually what they used.

1024 is marketing fluff, which they justified by running 8 passes on the file encryption key (to paraphrase the presentation - ‘Regular consumers don’t understand encryption standards, but think bigger numbers = better and trust the term Military Grade’).

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#67

Post by dathinab »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #39

There is no such thing as AES-1024 specified by NIST. AES is a NIST standard, it has three (and only three) variants: AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256. If you see something other than those three, it's almost certainly proprietary junk. Note that AES is always used in a "mode of operation" to provide any sort of secure encryption. AE-secure modes are AES-SIV, AES-GCM-SIV, AES-OCB, and AES-GCM in decreasing order of safe…

Yes, like the video states.

This is what the talk is called because that is what the vendor advertised not because it is a standardized thing which makes sense.

Actually the vendor does a lot of not so grate things, from a very very bad password hashing to how they handled file encryption.

Interesting is that the talk about the security ends at 32min, after this is a talk from a private contractor hired by the the company which messed up the encryption. Still watching it but that's unusual and nice.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#68

Post by oconnor663 »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #64
hatsunearu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That picture has become some sort of meme of itself (I've heard it referred as "you can see penguins through ECB") because it's so damn popular. However ECB is a lot worse than "you can see data patterns"--with a chosen plaintext attack (very common scenario in networking and storage applications) any dumbass can decrypt it trivially.

> with a chosen plaintext attack (very common scenario in networking and storage applications) any dumbass can decrypt it trivially. No you can’t get decryption key using chosen plaintext attack with AES. Read here: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1512/why-is-aes-r...

Parent said "decrypt", not "get the decryption key", and parent is correct. The attack looks kind of similar to a "padding oracle attack", where you work one byte at a time using a block boundary.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#69

Post by denton-scratch »

Closi wrote: post #66
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #39

There is no such thing as AES-1024 specified by NIST. AES is a NIST standard, it has three (and only three) variants: AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256. If you see something other than those three, it's almost certainly proprietary junk. Note that AES is always used in a "mode of operation" to provide any sort of secure encryption. AE-secure modes are AES-SIV, AES-GCM-SIV, AES-OCB, and AES-GCM in decreasing order of safe…

The company who wrote the software are in the presentation and explain this - 192 / 256 could not be used because of export restrictions, so AES-128 is actually what they used. 1024 is marketing fluff, which they justified by running 8 passes on the file encryption key (to paraphrase the presentation - ‘Regular consumers don’t understand encryption standards, but think bigger numbers = better and trust the term Milit…

No military buys "military-grade" anything. Militaries buy stuff that conforms to some specific military standard.

Re: Practical bruteforce of military grade AES-1024 (2021) [video]

#70

Post by GekkePrutser »

uvesten wrote: post #27
GekkePrutser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bruce Schneier always used the term 'snake oil' for such unfounded buzzwords and frequently did naming and shaming on his blog. But military-grade is just a buzzword. Unlike something like MIL-SPEC there is no body that determines what is military grade. And even MIL-SPEC is not very specific, most of its standards have many components that don't apply unless the vendor specifically certifies for it. But yeah most ve…

Off topic, but please consider using the correct tense when talking about people. E.g ”Uses” instead of ”used”, otherwise you are implying that the person in question is dead… (After reading your comment I went to wikipedia to check that Bruce Schneier hadn’t unexpectedly passed away.)

I used past tense because he stopped his blog/mailing list ;) At least in the form I used to read it.

But I agree that 'used to use' would be a better form without this connotation. I will strive to use this in the future in such cases.

He used to have a monthly mailing list, and I wasn't sure whether he still had a blog or something.

Post reply on HN