For one value, yes…. But for 8 different keys having stupidly low numbers? They either had a seriously faulty RNG, or more likely were hand creating the keys.
And the only reason to make a key that short is if you were trying to give them to someone who shouldn't have them, and needed to avoid any sort of digital trail, even copy and paste... so you would obviously just memorize them.
Memorizing a bunch of 384 bit keys is basically impossible... But memorizing a couple dozen numbers? Child's play.
Considering keys like this are usually copied and pasted anywhere they might need to be manually entered... There is zero reason to make them small enough to be human-readable, unless that's your actual intended use.
Anyone in a position where they are responsible for generating a root key for a certificate authority, 100% knows how to generate a key in their sleep.
The only explanation is that it was made easy intentionally, not lazily.
I'm willing to sacrifice about 10 % of the range by re-rolling if the number generated has too low/high value or low entropy (for example if its GZ compression is shorter than original). The range should taper off too, for instance if 2¹²³+1 is the technically lowest number possible, it should still have a 99% chance for a re-roll, so there's no "hard" lowest possible number. I don't want to be in the "front line".
"Now?"
"Now," said Deep Thought.
They both licked their dry lips.
"Though I don't think," added Deep Thought. "that you're going to like it."
"Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!"
"Now?" inquired Deep Thought.
"Yes! Now..."
"All right," said the computer, and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable.
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought.
Don't need it cracked today if you can store all the encrypted data in the world existing now, waiting for the day cracking it becomes feasible. It might be a bit outdated, but boy would the AI companies still over that training set.
I don't know what the state of it is today, but one if the things that Snowden's leaks showed was that NSA was/is hording massive amounts if yet unencrypted data. So it's been going on for a while.
Thankfully modern browsers use Certificate Transparency, and there's no indication that any compromised certs were actually used publicly.
However, there are many devices that use TLS which are not browsers, and those devices could in theory be selectively targeted with an evil cert without alerting the public CT servers.
A sequential brute force on a 384 bit key would take forever given how random they are. There's no reason to even try it. Well, there wasn't a reason to try it before.
Huh, you responded to my message 3 hours after I deleted it. Not because whoosh, I'm well aware of your stupid meme, but because it wasn't a proper use of an RSA prime.
40 replies
Someone must have used getRandomNumber().
hey now!
4 is just as random as 29833638292F9373638292926262141414331252526283994040218 is
For one value, yes…. But for 8 different keys having stupidly low numbers? They either had a seriously faulty RNG, or more likely were hand creating the keys.
And the only reason to make a key that short is if you were trying to give them to someone who shouldn't have them, and needed to avoid any sort of digital trail, even copy and paste... so you would obviously just memorize them.
Memorizing a bunch of 384 bit keys is basically impossible... But memorizing a couple dozen numbers? Child's play.
You underestimate the power of laziness and incompetence, I think
Considering keys like this are usually copied and pasted anywhere they might need to be manually entered... There is zero reason to make them small enough to be human-readable, unless that's your actual intended use.
"I need a 384-bit key... I have no idea how to generate one... oh, screw it... 4"
Anyone in a position where they are responsible for generating a root key for a certificate authority, 100% knows how to generate a key in their sleep.
The only explanation is that it was made easy intentionally, not lazily.
If that's what they needed, just remember an equation that turns easily remembered numbers into a 384 bit key.
Lol. So random xd
I'm willing to sacrifice about 10 % of the range by re-rolling if the number generated has too low/high value or low entropy (for example if its GZ compression is shorter than original). The range should taper off too, for instance if 2¹²³+1 is the technically lowest number possible, it should still have a 99% chance for a re-roll, so there's no "hard" lowest possible number. I don't want to be in the "front line".
Of course, here the RNG was clearly compromised.
"Now?" "Now," said Deep Thought. They both licked their dry lips. "Though I don't think," added Deep Thought. "that you're going to like it." "Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!" "Now?" inquired Deep Thought. "Yes! Now..." "All right," said the computer, and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable. "You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought.
W-H-A-T D-O Y-O-U G-E-T I-F Y-O-U M-U-L-T-I-P-L-Y S-I-X B-Y N-I-N-E
doesn't quite catch it
The answer to life, the universe and everything...
Well, the first half of the answer anyway...
two finyallys!
Private Key Solved: nya
Could be 42, you never know.
It’s probably already cracked by NSA or something.
Yeah, you can be sure a few agencies have been quietly exploiting this for years
I wouldn't be surprised if the agencies set it up. Although tbf, they probably would've done something more sophisticated.
Don't need it cracked today if you can store all the encrypted data in the world existing now, waiting for the day cracking it becomes feasible. It might be a bit outdated, but boy would the AI companies still over that training set.
So that's why hard disks are so expensive now...
I don't know what the state of it is today, but one if the things that Snowden's leaks showed was that NSA was/is hording massive amounts if yet unencrypted data. So it's been going on for a while.
Does this mean no one tried a sequential brute force attack on these systems?
Someone probably did. They probably didn’t share that.
Thankfully modern browsers use Certificate Transparency, and there's no indication that any compromised certs were actually used publicly.
However, there are many devices that use TLS which are not browsers, and those devices could in theory be selectively targeted with an evil cert without alerting the public CT servers.
Probably not, until now.
A sequential brute force on a 384 bit key would take forever given how random they are. There's no reason to even try it. Well, there wasn't a reason to try it before.
It means that some people are trying that -- now.
That’s likely how they were found by the original reporter
Bro knows we been had them for a while now, right?
We haven't built any with that purpose yet.
whooosh
Huh, you responded to my message 3 hours after I deleted it. Not because whoosh, I'm well aware of your stupid meme, but because it wasn't a proper use of an RSA prime.
hmm for me your message is still visible
Glories of federation. It doesn't always work.
Joy. Maybe I deleted it too quickly and it got delivered out of order to your instance. Or 🤷♂️
Federation doesn’t always propagate out deletions for some reason.