Full Version: Encryption too weak ?

QUOTE (SR4) |

Make a Decrypt + Response (Encryption rating x 2, 1 Combat Turn) Extended Test to break the encryption. |

Assuming the encryption rating is the rating of the encryption programm (there is no "encryption action" as stated on page 256) the hardest encryption would be 6.

Even if you use the house rule that allows only "skill" rolls in an extended test, the treshold of 2*6=12 can be cracked by a 12 year old.

If you have 5 decrypt, 4 response you get to roll 9*5 = 45 dice, that get you 13 hits on average.

If you dont use the house rule, but the optional rule that allows "dice" rolls you only need a combination of response and decrypt that adds up to 7. giving you 7*7=49 dice for an average of 14.33 hits.

If you dont restrict extended tests at all your 1 response 1 decrypt script kiddie is hacking your beefy rating 6 encryption in 18 combat turns which is about one minute.

Did I overlook something?

change to rating^2? or maybe 2^rating? The base time could use some fixing as well...

rating^2 gives the following difficulties:

1..1 (3 dice needed)

2..4 (12 dice needed)

3..9 (27 dice needed)

4..16 (48 dice needed)

5..25 (75 dice needed)

6..36 (108 dice needed)

2^Rating gives to following difficulties:

1..2 (6 dice)

2..4 (12 dice)

3..8 (24 dice)

4..16 (48 dice)

5..32 (96 dice)

6..64 (192 dice)

assuming program rating 6 (easy to get, relatively cheap)

and the following skill ratings, limiting rolls to skill rating, here are the total dice rolled:

skill 1: 7 dice (7x1)

skill 2: 16 dice (8x2)

skill 3: 27 dice (9x3)

skill 4: 40 dice (10x4)

skill 5: 55 dice (11x5)

skill 6: 72 dice (12x6)

This lets someone will skill 6 crack rating 5 encryption almost all of the time using the first system (in ~18 seconds) and need plenty of luck to crack rating 5 encryption using the second system...

Of course the elapsed times are too fast as well.

rating^2 gives the following difficulties:

1..1 (3 dice needed)

2..4 (12 dice needed)

3..9 (27 dice needed)

4..16 (48 dice needed)

5..25 (75 dice needed)

6..36 (108 dice needed)

2^Rating gives to following difficulties:

1..2 (6 dice)

2..4 (12 dice)

3..8 (24 dice)

4..16 (48 dice)

5..32 (96 dice)

6..64 (192 dice)

assuming program rating 6 (easy to get, relatively cheap)

and the following skill ratings, limiting rolls to skill rating, here are the total dice rolled:

skill 1: 7 dice (7x1)

skill 2: 16 dice (8x2)

skill 3: 27 dice (9x3)

skill 4: 40 dice (10x4)

skill 5: 55 dice (11x5)

skill 6: 72 dice (12x6)

This lets someone will skill 6 crack rating 5 encryption almost all of the time using the first system (in ~18 seconds) and need plenty of luck to crack rating 5 encryption using the second system...

Of course the elapsed times are too fast as well.

In my example above, the rating of "decrypt" would be the "skill" rating "response" would qualify as the attribute. It is funny that neither encrypt nor decrypt use the "electronic warfare" skill, although the utility is linked to the skill.

I would change this "decrypt + response" into "decrypt + electronic warfare" for streamlining. Response is always in the equation as it is constraining utility ratings . . .

rating^2 sounds reasonable. A base timr of "enc rating" combat turns might be ok.

I would change this "decrypt + response" into "decrypt + electronic warfare" for streamlining. Response is always in the equation as it is constraining utility ratings . . .

rating^2 sounds reasonable. A base timr of "enc rating" combat turns might be ok.

another possibility is to make the retest times for decryption very long, so that many things can be decrypted, if you don't mind waiting for a few hundred years... Of course this makes good encryption esentailly unbeatable, and since runners will almost always be going against people with good encryption this will remove the 'ability' to decrpyt whatever they want. Thankfully this is not 'game breaking' as both social engineering and the rubber hose method of decryption will usually have good odds of breaking the encryption.

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

Of course this makes good encryption esentailly unbeatable, and since runners will almost always be going against people with good encryption this will remove the 'ability' to decrpyt whatever they want. |

Which just destroys the character concept of a hacker - back to square one.

In SR3 it took unplayable amounts of time, gear and karma to defeat broadcast encryption, while it took only a Simple action and a halfway decent Program to defeat any matrix encryption.

The method of changing * to ^ while leaving everything else the same would be the least invasive one, too.

To me, too many dice rolls to accomplish a single thing seems boring. I would keep the system as it is, and limit the number of rolls to 4. That's not even changing the rules - the amount of rolls is *supposed* to be the GM's decision. Rolls = Dice Pool is only a suggestion (see page 58).

Assuming you got the best decryption program possible for you (that is, equal to your Response rating), you would on average be able to break encryptions one level higher than your program. Here's the table:

Decryption (and Response) 1 = 2,6 hits (beats Encryption 1)

2 = 5,3 hits (beats Encryption 2)

3 = 8 hits (beats Encryption 4)

4 = 10,6 hits (beats Encryption 5)

5 = 13,3 hits (beats Encryption 6)

6 = 16 hits (beats Encryption 8 )

If you want better encryption, a smoother curve and faster gameplay, you could limit the number of rolls to 3. Then you can't even count on beating encryptions of the same rating as your decryption program. Sounds to harsh for me, but here's the table:

Decryption (and Response) 1 = 2 hits (beats Encryption 1)

2 = 4 hits (beats Encryption 2)

3 = 6 hits (beats Encryption 3)

4 = 8 hits (beats Encryption 4)

5 = 10 hits (beats Encryption 5)

6 = 12 hits (beats Encryption 6)

Allso, The Electronic Warfare Specialization "Encryption" has got to be the most worthless Specialization in the book...

Assuming you got the best decryption program possible for you (that is, equal to your Response rating), you would on average be able to break encryptions one level higher than your program. Here's the table:

Decryption (and Response) 1 = 2,6 hits (beats Encryption 1)

2 = 5,3 hits (beats Encryption 2)

3 = 8 hits (beats Encryption 4)

4 = 10,6 hits (beats Encryption 5)

5 = 13,3 hits (beats Encryption 6)

6 = 16 hits (beats Encryption 8 )

If you want better encryption, a smoother curve and faster gameplay, you could limit the number of rolls to 3. Then you can't even count on beating encryptions of the same rating as your decryption program. Sounds to harsh for me, but here's the table:

Decryption (and Response) 1 = 2 hits (beats Encryption 1)

2 = 4 hits (beats Encryption 2)

3 = 6 hits (beats Encryption 3)

4 = 8 hits (beats Encryption 4)

5 = 10 hits (beats Encryption 5)

6 = 12 hits (beats Encryption 6)

Allso, The Electronic Warfare Specialization "Encryption" has got to be the most worthless Specialization in the book...

Until Unwired, possibly.

The poor effectiveness of encryption could be due to advances in P vs. NP problems. The ability to solve NP -hard problems in polynomial time would make decryption of most modern schemes trivial given the massive computer power availible to 2070 electronics.

Assuming Moore's law continues to hold, the computing power availible come 2070 will be about 9x10^12th (or 2^43rd) times as powerfull as what is availible now. With a highly efficient prime number sive, public-key encryption would be easy to crack.

Assuming Moore's law continues to hold, the computing power availible come 2070 will be about 9x10^12th (or 2^43rd) times as powerfull as what is availible now. With a highly efficient prime number sive, public-key encryption would be easy to crack.

Lebo77:

It's true that math advances could make cracking public key encryption much easier. On the other hand, private key cryptography couldn't be broken so easily unless there have been developments that give everyone infinate processing power (such as some of the dream predictions for quantum computing). Even with infinate processing power, it's still possible to make unbreakable crypto by ensuring that multiple keys can decrypt the file to different valid plaintexts.

In the context of Shadowrun, breakable encryption might make things more fun (although having to hack into where the key is stored can be fun too).

A rule like "If the rating of your encryption program doesn't exceed the rating of the encryption, the extended test interval is 1 hour." might be interesting.

It's true that math advances could make cracking public key encryption much easier. On the other hand, private key cryptography couldn't be broken so easily unless there have been developments that give everyone infinate processing power (such as some of the dream predictions for quantum computing). Even with infinate processing power, it's still possible to make unbreakable crypto by ensuring that multiple keys can decrypt the file to different valid plaintexts.

In the context of Shadowrun, breakable encryption might make things more fun (although having to hack into where the key is stored can be fun too).

A rule like "If the rating of your encryption program doesn't exceed the rating of the encryption, the extended test interval is 1 hour." might be interesting.

Well, you do lose the 'story mechanic' of 'needing X time' to decrypt the file. It either happens in seconds or not at all. Also it makes sitting down and breakingthe encryption preferable to any number of schemes to obtain the encryption key.

Personally, I'd prefer to keep encyrption 'hard' as more of the party is likely to be involved in 'key theft' that just the hacker.

Personally, I'd prefer to keep encyrption 'hard' as more of the party is likely to be involved in 'key theft' that just the hacker.

QUOTE (Lebo77) |

The poor effectiveness of encryption could be due to advances in P vs. NP problems. The ability to solve NP -hard problems in polynomial time would make decryption of most modern schemes trivial given the massive computer power availible to 2070 electronics. |

Effectiveness of future encryption schemes is not a matter of computational power, it's a matter of concept. Whatever the progression of computational power in the future may be, one thing is for sure: if there exist encryption schemes that are widely believed to be secure (even by Megacorps, governments, etc.), then Joe Average Streetpunk won't have the knowledge of breaking them. That is the very essence of encryption.

But then again, considering it is a game world, one can make of it whatever he wants.

Btw: hello board.

In general, secure encryption algorytms **are** public. It's just that there are no efficient ways to break them, so it dosen't matter if you know someone is using xyz encryption angorythm, you can't wait for the universe to grow cold to find out what was said.

Usings Moore's law, some quick google results, and a bit of guessing, a PGP message encrypted with a 1024 bit ket would take a pretty good 2070 desktop ~ 9 minutes to crack. A PGP message encrypted with a 2048 bit key would take roughly 17,000**years** to crack. This is, of course, assuming no 'improved' attacks against PGP are found in the intervening time.

(For a bit of fun, this is assuming that a 2070 desktop computer can do a about ~9E20 useful operations per second.)

So, the short version is that encryption that is 'pretty good' today could still possible give headaches to our great grandchildren...

Usings Moore's law, some quick google results, and a bit of guessing, a PGP message encrypted with a 1024 bit ket would take a pretty good 2070 desktop ~ 9 minutes to crack. A PGP message encrypted with a 2048 bit key would take roughly 17,000

(For a bit of fun, this is assuming that a 2070 desktop computer can do a about ~9E20 useful operations per second.)

So, the short version is that encryption that is 'pretty good' today could still possible give headaches to our great grandchildren...

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

So, the short version is that encryption that is 'pretty good' today could still possible give headaches to our great grandchildren... |

And i doubt that today's encryption schemes will be anywhere near the sota encryption schemes of 2070.

This, of course, assumes that no polynomial time algorithm exists for finding large prime factors exists. If such an algorithm were discovered, most, if not all, of current encryption schemes (barring one time pads) would become crap almost overnight.

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

In general, secure encryption algorytms are public. It's just that there are no efficient ways to break them, so it dosen't matter if you know someone is using xyz encryption angorythm, you can't wait for the universe to grow cold to find out what was said.Usings Moore's law, some quick google results, and a bit of guessing, a PGP message encrypted with a 1024 bit ket would take a pretty good 2070 desktop ~ 9 minutes to crack. A PGP message encrypted with a 2048 bit key would take roughly 17,000 years to crack. This is, of course, assuming no 'improved' attacks against PGP are found in the intervening time.(For a bit of fun, this is assuming that a 2070 desktop computer can do a about ~9E20 useful operations per second.) So, the short version is that encryption that is 'pretty good' today could still possible give headaches to our great grandchildren... |

Yes thats why the worlds best encryption algorithm out there today was cracked by hackers in 3 days the second time they tried. The first time was a couple of months. And that was encryption that was supposed to take years upon years to crack. Hackers are far more ingenious at figuring out ways for breaking encryption than you give them credit for.

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

This, of course, assumes that no polynomial time algorithm exists for finding large prime factors exists. |

Nope. It assumes that future encryption is unlikely to be based on the hardness of factoring therefore it doesn't matter if such an algorithm exists.

I was making no comment about future encryption schemes. It was an addendum to my post about cracking PGP. In that the difficulty of cracking PGP lies in finding large prime factors of numbers. This current algorithms to do this take 'super' polynomial time, this is why PGP would take so long to crack using current algorithms.

stupid question, and it only applies to text encryption, but what would the result be if you ran each leter through a letter number interface filtering the sequence through 5 dead languages and one non-sensical language, would that make it harder to crack you think

QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet) |

Yes thats why the worlds best encryption algorithm out there today was cracked by hackers in 3 days the second time they tried. The first time was a couple of months. |

Got some reference for that? A link?

QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Sep 23 2005, 09:13 AM) | ||

Got some reference for that? A link? |

sure let me go dig it up and I'll edit here and post it.

EDIT: Atm having trouble tracking down the article on it though I'm still working on it. I will give relate what I remember just incase someone else picks up on it and can help me find the thing faster. Essentialy there was a contest(?) to see if the encryption was breakable to prove that it was unbreakable. Bunch of hackers got together, and essentialy created a distributed network using the unused cycles of the CPU's. First time they beat the encryption in a matter of 2-3 months I think, and then they tried a second time enlarging their network and beat it in a matter of days. Anyways back to searching!

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

Maybe your are refering to a breaking of RSA-129 in 1994? Linky |

Quite possibly. I had thought something like that was done alot more recently. I could very well be wrong here so I apologize if I've got my dates confused and such and am infact completely wrong.

More likely you're talking about distributed.net and their breaking of either RC5 or DES II

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...Distributed.net

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...Distributed.net

He can't possibly be referring to any of those based on his statement of the "best encryption algorithm out there today."

DES-56 was considered near obsolete by most experts by the time I learned about it in 1995. At that point in time, they were basically saying don't use it -- it could fall apart at any time.

RSA-129 is not relevant; modern public key systems are suggested to use a minimum of 1024 bits, which is a number that is 308 digits in length. People these days often go for a 2048 bit key, which is a truly obscene number.

DES-II was just DES-64, iirc. Not even close to SOTA at the point it happened.

As far as cracking encryption goes, given current methods and the rate of improvement of technology and methods, modern day encryption generally provides "good enough" protection for encrypted data for about 20 years after the introduction of the technology. Often times, simply increasing the bitsize of the key can increase the lifetime of the method.

Remember, each bit size increases the keyspace by twice as much as the previous bit. The original DES used a 56 bit key, basically a 16 digit number. DES-64 was a 19 digit number. Modern symmetric key systems use at least 128 bits -- a 38 digit number. That's a huge difference in keyspace sizes.

That's why I was suprised by his statement that someone broke SOTA encryption in a matter of days. If that was the case, they either got lucky and it was a unique incident (that can happen on brute forces, it's just very unlikely), or someone proved P=NP or invented a practical quantum computer or something like that. If that's the case, that is *crazy* stuff.

DES-56 was considered near obsolete by most experts by the time I learned about it in 1995. At that point in time, they were basically saying don't use it -- it could fall apart at any time.

RSA-129 is not relevant; modern public key systems are suggested to use a minimum of 1024 bits, which is a number that is 308 digits in length. People these days often go for a 2048 bit key, which is a truly obscene number.

DES-II was just DES-64, iirc. Not even close to SOTA at the point it happened.

As far as cracking encryption goes, given current methods and the rate of improvement of technology and methods, modern day encryption generally provides "good enough" protection for encrypted data for about 20 years after the introduction of the technology. Often times, simply increasing the bitsize of the key can increase the lifetime of the method.

Remember, each bit size increases the keyspace by twice as much as the previous bit. The original DES used a 56 bit key, basically a 16 digit number. DES-64 was a 19 digit number. Modern symmetric key systems use at least 128 bits -- a 38 digit number. That's a huge difference in keyspace sizes.

That's why I was suprised by his statement that someone broke SOTA encryption in a matter of days. If that was the case, they either got lucky and it was a unique incident (that can happen on brute forces, it's just very unlikely), or someone proved P=NP or invented a practical quantum computer or something like that. If that's the case, that is *crazy* stuff.

Or used some autistic cryptograpgher

QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |

This, of course, assumes that no polynomial time algorithm exists for finding large prime factors exists. If such an algorithm were discovered, most, if not all, of current encryption schemes (barring one time pads) would become crap almost overnight. |

Shadowrun cryptography sounds more like symmetric key cryptography (like DES) than public key crypto (like RSA). Symmetric key crypto doesn't care about prime numbers. Like I said before, eithor you have (near) infinate processing power, a crack for the specific algorithm, or you don't break the crypto.

Assuming current understanding of information theory and physics are accurate, the entire energy output of the sun for it's entire lifespan could not power a turing-type computer constructed within the laws of physics that could brute force a 256 bit symmetric key. (Source: Bruce Schneier "Applied Cryptography") Quantum computers could reduce the computational difficulty to the square root of what a turing machine would need - so a 512 bit key would thwart any quantum computer.

This assumes that the best attack is brute force. If that were true in Shadowrun, decrypt utilities wouldn't exist.

QUOTE (Nikoli) |

Or used some autistic cryptograpgher |

QUOTE (Chandon) |

Assuming current understanding of information theory and physics are accurate, the entire energy output of the sun for it's entire lifespan could not power a turing-type computer constructed within the laws of physics that could brute force a 256 bit symmetric key. (Source: Bruce Schneier "Applied Cryptography") |

hades: He never retracted his brute forcing estimates, he just re-clarified that in real world systems it's not the cryptography that breaks. The fact that people are retards and can't use (or even understand, or even want to understand) security tools (the topic of "Secrets and Lies") doesn't change the math.

QUOTE (Chandon) |

hades: He never retracted his brute forcing estimates, he just re-clarified that in real world systems it's not the cryptography that breaks. The fact that people are retards and can't use (or even understand, or even want to understand) security tools (the topic of "Secrets and Lies") doesn't change the math. |

It certainly has a bearing on why a SR Decrypt could break SR Encrypt.

QUOTE (blakkie) |

It certainly has a bearing on why a SR Decrypt could break SR Encrypt. |

Not so much.

In his later books, Schneier downplayed the utility of crypto because the attacks that mattered were never people trying to get the contents of an encrypted file by decrypting it without access to the key. In Shadowrun, the decrypt utility is explicitly trying to decrypt/crack an encrypted file. Not trick the user into giving them an unecrypted copy, not install a trojan horse that steals the key, not ignore the encrypted file entirely because it isn't important, actually break the cryptographic system.

In the real world, with a properly built cryptographic system designed around a properly selected cryptographic algorithim, that sort of attack is impossible. You could get around that if the user was using the crypto system incorrectly - if you want to show that as a game master it has nothing to do with the decrypt utility, it means the user left a decrypted backup copy of the file somewhere by mistake - let the hacker make a matrix perception test to find it.

Based on my line of reasoning, the only way the decrypt utility could work is by exploiting incorrectly designed cryptograhic systems (represented by encrypt utilities with low ratings). Desiging crypto utilities is hard - it's somewhat reasonable that even a rating 6 encrypt utility would have implementation flaws. On the other hand, it's probably not reasonable that those flaws can be easily exploited by a low quality decrypt utility. I stand by the house rule I suggested earlier if you want to fix this: If the rating of your decryption program doesn't exceed the rating of the encryption, the extended test interval is 1 hour and if the encryption rating is double the rating of the decrypt utility, it cannot be cracked.

Edit: Fixed typo.

QUOTE (Chandon @ Sep 23 2005, 02:31 PM) |

In the real world, with a properly built cryptographic system designed around a properly selected cryptographic algorithim, that sort of attack is impossible. |

Yes, well that's for the quality stuff. SR encryption/decryption makes moderately more sense if you assume the [real world] Microsoft Excel 95 team is still assembled and the top provider of main stream encryption code. Further given the complexity of the systems part of Decrypt can be hunting for clues to the keys left in the data garbage (once again up with secrecy ineptitude!). At least that is how i choose to read the handwaving of "advanced sampling, pattern-matching, and brute-force attacks" to help gloss over it.

After all in the real world "properly built" systems don't have security flaws due to buffer overflows.

Yea, you could nicely explain it away if you said that the "Decryption" SR is talking about is really various ways to get plaintext and keys or partial keys rather than actually breaking the encryption... kind of a stretch, but maybe more beleivable than encryption being so weak.

As I learned from Dr. Who, "pure mathemeaics do not lie". Considering the resourses available to the average shadowrunner compared to those available to the average megacorp, I feel it safe to say that the only real chance that a PC has of breaking their encrypttion schemes is based on GM fiat in the interest of playability.

This would obviously be different if the GM is generous enough to let the PCs have acess to top-notch tech, but that is usually the domain of those with multi-BILLION nuyen accounts, and even then, megacorps are used to competing against those with similar resources to themselves; i.e. more than the PCs will probably earn in their entire lives (unless they're Elves).

Of course, that makes for a boring game. Either you become a Monty Haul GM, allowing the PCs to become grossly overpowered, or you fudge reality and allow them to break Are' new super-ultra-secret encryption alogorithm on a Pocket Secretary. It's a tricky balancing act.

In the end, it is the GM's responsibility to balance the reality versus the playability to allow the PCs to feel a sense of accomplishment at overcoming the odds without allowing them to do that which is seriously beyond their true ability. If every group of PCs could do that, the megacorps would've fallen within the first month of their founding, as would any other potential target of a run. Sure, it's a game and the players are supposed to win for playability's sake... unless they get too stupidly overpowered to survive. They are supposed to be CHALLENGED, not handed success due to their 'omnipotence' or GM sympathy. OTOH, if they show they are truly equal to the challenge despite the low numbers on their character sheet....

Ideally, the GM should be as challenged as the player, and not just becuase they play all the NPCs. Them GM isn't there just to stroke the Players' ego, but they aren't there just to kill the PC either. Be fair, be real, etcetera.

This would obviously be different if the GM is generous enough to let the PCs have acess to top-notch tech, but that is usually the domain of those with multi-BILLION nuyen accounts, and even then, megacorps are used to competing against those with similar resources to themselves; i.e. more than the PCs will probably earn in their entire lives (unless they're Elves).

Of course, that makes for a boring game. Either you become a Monty Haul GM, allowing the PCs to become grossly overpowered, or you fudge reality and allow them to break Are' new super-ultra-secret encryption alogorithm on a Pocket Secretary. It's a tricky balancing act.

In the end, it is the GM's responsibility to balance the reality versus the playability to allow the PCs to feel a sense of accomplishment at overcoming the odds without allowing them to do that which is seriously beyond their true ability. If every group of PCs could do that, the megacorps would've fallen within the first month of their founding, as would any other potential target of a run. Sure, it's a game and the players are supposed to win for playability's sake... unless they get too stupidly overpowered to survive. They are supposed to be CHALLENGED, not handed success due to their 'omnipotence' or GM sympathy. OTOH, if they show they are truly equal to the challenge despite the low numbers on their character sheet....

Ideally, the GM should be as challenged as the player, and not just becuase they play all the NPCs. Them GM isn't there just to stroke the Players' ego, but they aren't there just to kill the PC either. Be fair, be real, etcetera.

Static encryption is all ways venerable to brute force, and is in a constant race to keep it ahead of hardware. The time to crack will always be kind of tied to the hardware. You can only use so much encryption on your system before you choke to death on it. On the other side you can always bring down the time to brake by throwing more hardware at it.

Conclusion unless you are talking about a file that is never used in any kind of real time application you are tied to your hardware. Given this unless you are going to put big blue on every desktop or transport unencryption the data across the network, HEHEHE, you really can't do much more then slow hackers down.

For game play I would make the interval between test a couple of hours. That I would think would give the right feel.

Conclusion unless you are talking about a file that is never used in any kind of real time application you are tied to your hardware. Given this unless you are going to put big blue on every desktop or transport unencryption the data across the network, HEHEHE, you really can't do much more then slow hackers down.

For game play I would make the interval between test a couple of hours. That I would think would give the right feel.

Hehehe, slow those hackers down for a few **thousand years** that is. The 'computational cost' of an encryption algorithm is unimaginably small compared to the computational cost of brute forcing said encryption.

If I can find some time, I'll write up some still 'gameable' ways of breaking encryption that don't rely on brute force attacks.

If I can find some time, I'll write up some still 'gameable' ways of breaking encryption that don't rely on brute force attacks.

like say sampleing traffic and looking for patterns? thats how one breaks atleast one of the available encryption systems on current wifi.

QUOTE (jervinator) |

As I learned from Dr. Who, "pure mathemeaics do not lie". |

That's like saying "pure words do not lie".

QUOTE (hobgoblin) |

like say sampleing traffic and looking for patterns? thats how one breaks atleast one of the available encryption systems on current wifi. |

WEP's algorithms/design is "broken". "Broken" is actually a term of art which means that the algorithm can be decrypted by an unauthorized user (ie, one who does not know the key) in less time than it takes to do an exhaustive search of the keyspace.

Whenever an encryption algorithm becomes known as broken, anyone truly concerned about security will cease to use it. There are plenty of other algorithms that you can move to. Any algorithm that can be defeated by sampling of encrypted data (in less time than exhaustive search of keyspace) is broken, and should not be used. Yes, this includes WEP, which is why we now have something called WPA which users are encouraged to use instead.

WEP is now considered to be rather like the deadbolt you put on your front door -- it's only good for keeping out people who are not really determined to get in.

If you want a good reason for encryption to be breakable in the Shadowrun world, think about who is most likely to provide encryption algorithms for sale to the general public -- governments and corporations. Anyone who pays attention to the government with respect to encryption for the past few years know that the government wants to design weakness into encryption standards so law enforcement can break it when it wants to.

Because most people in Shadowrun are going to buy their encryption from a third party (as opposed to designing it themselves), it is a very easy thing to attribute the ease of breaking the encryption to the idea of designed weakness. The corps who provide these encryption codes obviously want to be able to break them themselves.

Encryption ratings would then reflect two things -- one, the ease of using these "designed" weaknesses, and two, how widely disseminated the knowledge of the design weaknesses is.

A lower rated encryption might have very easily exploited weaknesses, with the exploit being widely disseminated because it is a very old code. A highly-rated encryption might be a fresh Ares' eyes-only encryption code, one that Ares wanted to be breakable only with the kind of resources Ares could bring to bear, and one that most people have never even heard of (so the info has limited distribution).

QUOTE (Chandon) |

He never retracted his brute forcing estimates, he just re-clarified that in real world systems it's not the cryptography that breaks. The fact that people are retards and can't use (or even understand, or even want to understand) security tools (the topic of "Secrets and Lies") doesn't change the math. |

Schneier impressively "re-clarified" that security assumptions - however convincing they may appear - cannot be considered to be complete. I.e. they cannot regard every possibility. They are simply assumptions and by no means a guarantee. So one should be very careful to make statements about the efficiency of future encryption schemes based on current knowledge. Such statements turned out to be ridiculous at best in the past.

QUOTE (hades) |

Schneier impressively "re-clarified" that security assumptions - however convincing they may appear - cannot be considered to be complete. I.e. they cannot regard every possibility. They are simply assumptions and by no means a guarantee. So one should be very careful to make statements about the efficiency of future encryption schemes based on current knowledge. Such statements turned out to be ridiculous at best in the past. |

That's because Schneier's later writings about security aren't about cryptography. They're about practical security - which is a different topic. What he's saying is that even a cryptographic algorithim that cannot be broken isn't secure if it isn't used, or if the crptographic key isn't managed properly. Note further that he's trying to sell something - his monitored-by-humans internet security service.

QUOTE (Chandon) |

That's because Schneier's later writings about security aren't about cryptography. They're about practical security - which is a different topic. |

Whatever terms you may use, it simply goes to show that the initial assessment of the problem was incomplete and therefore absurd. In this case it disregarded the human factor. Who knows what other factor it will be in the future? And 2070 is - in terms of applied cryptography - a very distant future.

Folks, don't argue about reality here. Encryption rules are simply a game balancing design desicion. Do you want to have the super encryption hacked in 10 seconds or 10 days or never.

I would say that the rating^2 treshold with the only "decryption skill" rolls using decryption + electronic warfare would be ok, with each roll taking "rating" turns.

I would say that the rating^2 treshold with the only "decryption skill" rolls using decryption + electronic warfare would be ok, with each roll taking "rating" turns.

QUOTE (Serbitar) |

Folks, don't argue about reality here. Encryption rules are simply a game balancing design desicion. Do you want to have the super encryption hacked in 10 seconds or 10 days or never. |

Absolutely true. I think all those times should be possible depending on the rating of the encrypt program versus the rating of the decrypt program.

I was kinda disappointed that decryption takes minutes, not days. Nor does it seem to be dependent on responce.

it IS dependent on response. The mein rules say response + decrypt.

But thats silly because there is no reaosn why resonse should affect decrypting mroe than any other computer action. And the decrypt utility rating is limited by response anyway.

But thats silly because there is no reaosn why resonse should affect decrypting mroe than any other computer action. And the decrypt utility rating is limited by response anyway.

QUOTE (Serbitar) |

it IS dependent on response. The mein rules say response + decrypt. But thats silly because there is no reaosn why resonse should affect decrypting mroe than any other computer action. And the decrypt utility rating is limited by response anyway. |

Oops, well I mean you are brute-forcing, so processor power matters a ton right?

As I promised earlier, here are some ways to defeat encryption without having to brute force the cypher text:

Key theft: depending on how the encryption system is set up, stealing the encryption key from a physically secure location may allow you to break the encryption. Bonus points if the targets don't know their key has been stolen, so continue using the same key. The ecryption key may be protected by a password, but brute forcing the password guarding the encryption key is almost invariably easier.

This is why its a good idea to change keys with some regularity.

Theft of plaintext: you can install a program thourgh social engineering, bribery, or plain hacking to make a copy of the plaintext of the encrypted files. For example, you could modify a printer used to print normally encrypted documents to keep a copy of those documetns, then drop by a get the copies from the printer's memory. You can also do dumpster diving (may be less applicable in 2070).

Rubber hose method: find out who knows the password, kidnap them, apply rubber hoses to the soles of thier feet until they tell you the password.

What's 'good' about each of these methods is they are still 'runnable'...

Key theft: depending on how the encryption system is set up, stealing the encryption key from a physically secure location may allow you to break the encryption. Bonus points if the targets don't know their key has been stolen, so continue using the same key. The ecryption key may be protected by a password, but brute forcing the password guarding the encryption key is almost invariably easier.

This is why its a good idea to change keys with some regularity.

Theft of plaintext: you can install a program thourgh social engineering, bribery, or plain hacking to make a copy of the plaintext of the encrypted files. For example, you could modify a printer used to print normally encrypted documents to keep a copy of those documetns, then drop by a get the copies from the printer's memory. You can also do dumpster diving (may be less applicable in 2070).

Rubber hose method: find out who knows the password, kidnap them, apply rubber hoses to the soles of thier feet until they tell you the password.

What's 'good' about each of these methods is they are still 'runnable'...

Apparently you can also just listen very intently.

but all those eliminate the (alltho unrealistic) idea that hackers can solo their way into a system. its an old classic, and one that was written by a writer that knew nothing about computers, but it have stuck around.

like say in the movie version of cowboy bebop where when trying to arrest a hacker he hackes the lighting of the place and turns it of, buying himself time to get out of there.

ok, so its not the best of examples but it sets the tone. having a file your after that just cant be cracked (if the gm is lazy or wants to railroad the players) then what?

like say in the movie version of cowboy bebop where when trying to arrest a hacker he hackes the lighting of the place and turns it of, buying himself time to get out of there.

ok, so its not the best of examples but it sets the tone. having a file your after that just cant be cracked (if the gm is lazy or wants to railroad the players) then what?

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.

Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012