I have a question about aes keys.
I have a binary file which contains an aes256 key (32 bytes) at an unknown offset.
Would it be somehow possible to find this key in the file? Is it somehow possible to tell whether the next 32 bytes would be a valid aes key?
Thanks in advance
EDIT:
Thanks for all of your answers,
The key is stored in the file as normal bytes.
I finally managed to create a way to get it.
I basically filter out all strings, which actually made it work.
Thanks again
Well, yes and no. AES-256 keys should consist of just 32 bytes that are indistinguishable from random. Most files do not consist of just random bytes, so it could be possible t find a sequence that is most likely random, and this could be that key you are looking for. However, it might very well be that there are other random sequences in the file, or sequences that look like random but aren't random at all (such as the binary representation of the number Pi).
It may also be that you are unlucky and that the AES key doesn't look all that random. Or that the key is stored in hexadecimals (text) rather than binary byte values. Then there is the issue of finding the exact offset that might be the problem (is that initial byte with value 0x20 indicating the size of the AES key, a space character or part of the key value)?
Most files have a specific format, so you should first have a look at that. Just looking for random sequences may give you both false positives (rather likely) or false negatives (less likely). If you expect 64 bytes of randomness (two keys) then I suggest you search for that first, as it brings down the chance of false positives by a rather large amount.
No - unless you have a way to verify the key against a known plaintext/ciphertext pair - an AES key is not distinguishable from random noise. Any set of 16, 24 or 32 bytes is a valid AES key.
Related
I am working on encryption & decryption of data using AES-CCM.
While studying AES, I came across a word called S-Box.
What is S-Box, and the relationship with AES? How can it be calculated? Is it depends on symmetric key or not?
How will cypher text be generated in AES-CCM 128 bit?
The S-Boxes are a system that is used in symmetric cryptographic algorithms to substitute and obscure the relationship between the key and the text that you want to cypher.
You can see more in this article. Here, you have a part:
There are different types of cyphers according to their design [68]. One of these is the ​Substitution–PermutationNetwork (SPN) that generates the ciphered text by applying substitution and permutation rounds to the original text and the symmetric key to create confusion. To do this, it must be used the Substitution boxes (S-boxes) and Permutation boxes (P-boxes). The S-boxes substitute one-to-one the bits of a block of the input text in the round with bits of the output text. This output is taken as an input in the P-boxes and then it permutes all the bits that will be used as S-box input in the next round.
As #CGG said, S-boxes are a component of a Substitution-Permutation Network. The Wikipedia entry has good diagrams which will help explain how they work.
Think of an S-box as a simple substitution cipher -- A=1, B=2, etc. In an SPN, you run input through an S-box to substitute new values, then you run that result through a P-box (permutation) to distribute the modified bits out to as many S-boxes as possible. This loop repeats to spread the changes throughout the entire cipher text.
In general, an S-box replaces the input bits with an identical number of output bits. This exchange should be 1:1 to provide invertibility (i.e. you must be able to reverse the operation in order to decrypt), should employ the avalanche effect (so changing 1 bit of input changes about half the output bits), and should depend on every bit of input.
I'm trying to find 2 different plain text words that create very similar hashes.
I'm using the hashing method 'whirlpool', but I don't really need my question to be answered in the case or whirlpool, if you can using md5 or something easier that's ok.
The similarities i'm looking for is that they contain the same number of letters (doesnt matter how much they're jangled up)
i.e
plaintext 'test'
hash 1: abbb5 has 1 a , 3 b's , one 5
plaintext 'blahblah'
hash 2: b5bab must have the same, but doesnt matter what order.
I'm sure I can read up on how they're created and break it down and reverse it, but I am just wondering if what I'm talking about occurs.
I'm wondering because I haven't found a match of what I'm explaining (I created a PoC to run threw random words / letters till it recreated a similar match), but then again It would take forever doing it the way i was dong it. and was wondering if anyone with real knowledge of hashes / encryption would help me out.
So you can do it like this:
create an empty sorted map \
create a 64 bit counter (you don't need more than 2^63 inputs, in all probability, since you would be dead before they would be calculated - unless quantum crypto really takes off)
use the counter as input, probably easiest to encode it in 8 bytes;
use this as input for your hash function;
encode output of hash in hex (use ASCII bytes, for speed);
sort hex on number / alphabetically (same thing really)
check if sorted hex result is a key in the map
if it is, show hex result, the old counter from the map & the current counter (and stop)
if it isn't, put the sorted hex result in the map, with the counter as value
increase counter, goto 3
That's all folks. Results for SHA-1:
011122344667788899999aaaabbbcccddeeeefff for both 320324 and 429678
I don't know why you want to do this for hex, the hashes will be so large that they won't look too much alike. If your alphabet is smaller, your code will run (even) quicker. If you use whole output bytes (i.e. 00 to FF instead of 0 to F) instead of hex, it will take much more time - a quick (non-optimized) test on my machine shows it doesn't finish in minutes and then runs out of memory.
I want code to render n bits with n + x bits, non-sequentially. I'd Google it but my Google-fu isn't working because I don't know the term for it.
For example, the input value in the first column (2 bits) might be encoded as any of the output values in the comma-delimited second column (4 bits) below:
0 1,2,7,9
1 3,8,12,13
2 0,4,6,11
3 5,10,14,15
My goal is to take a list of integer IDs, and transform them in a way they can still be used for persistent URLs, but that can't be iterated/enumerated sequentially, and where a client cannot determine programmatically if a URL in a search result set has been visited previously without visiting it again.
I would term this process "encoding". You'll see something similar done to permit the use of communications channels that have special symbols that are not permitted in data. Examples: uuencoding and base64 encoding.
That said, you still need to (and appear at first blush to have) ensure that there is only one correct de-code; and accept the increase in size of the output (in the case above, the output will be double the size, bit-for-bit as the input).
I think you'd be better off encrypting the number with a cheap cypher + a constant secret key stored on your server(s), adding a random character or four at the end, and a cheap checksum, and simply reject any responses that don't have a valid checksum.
<encrypt(secret)>
<integer>+<random nonsense>
</encrypt>
+
<checksum()>
<integer>+<random nonsense>
</checksum>
Then decrypt the first part (remember, cheap == fast), validate the ciphertext using the checksum, throw off the random nonsense, and use the integer you stored.
There are probably some cryptographic no-no's here, but let's face it, the cost of this algorithm being broken is a touch on the low side.
if i have a hash say like this: 0d47aeda9d97686ab3da96bae2c93d078a5ab253
how do i do the math to find out the number of possibilities to try if i start with 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 which is the general length of a sha1.
The number of possibilities would be 2^(X) where X is the number of bits in the hash.
In the normal hexadecimal string representation of the hash value like the one you gave, each character is 4 bits, so it would be 2^(4*len) where len is the string length of the hash value. In your example, you have a 40 character SHA1 digest, which corresponds to 160 bits, or 2^160 == 1.4615016373309029182036848327163e+48 values.
An SHA-1 hash is 160 bits, so there are 2^160 possible hashes.
Your hexadecimal digit range is 0 through f.
Then it's simply 16^40 or however many characters it contains
Recall that a hash function accepts inputs of arbitrary length. A good cryptographic hash function will seem to assign a "random" hash result to any input. So if the digest is N bits long (for SHA-1, N=160), then every input will be hashed to one of 2^N possible results, in a manner we'll treat as random.
That means that the expectation for finding a preimage for your hash result is running though 2^N inputs. They don't have to be specifically the range that you suggested - any 2^N distinct inputs are fine.
This also means that 2^N inputs don't guarantee that you'll find a preimage - each try is random, so you might miss your 1-in-2^N chance in every single one of those 2^N inputs (just like flipping a coin twice doesn't guarantee you'll get heads at least once). But you can figure out how many inputs are required to find a preimage for the hash with probability p or greater - with p being as close to one as you desire (just not actually 1).
maximum variations, with repeating and with attention to the order are defined as n^k. in your case this would mean 10^40, which can't be correct for SHA1. Reading Wikipedia it sais SHA1 has a max. complexity for a collision based attack of 2^80, using different technices researches were allready successfull with 2^51 collisions, so 10^40 seems a bit much.
I have some base-64 encoded encrypted data and noticed a fair amount of repetition. In a (approx) 200-character-long string, a certain base-64 character is repeated up to 7 times in several separate repeated runs.
Is this a red flag that there is a problem in the encryption? According to my understanding, encrypted data should never show significant repetition, even if the plaintext is entirely uniform (i.e. even if I encrypt 2 GB of nothing but the letter A, there should be no significant repetition in the encrypted version).
According to the binomial distribution, there is about a 2.5% chance that you'd see one character from a set of 64 appear seven times in a series of 200 random characters. That's a small chance, but not negligible. With more information, you might raise your confidence from 97.5% to something very close to 100% … or find that the cipher text really is uniformly distributed.
You say that the "character is repeated up to 7 times" in several separate repeated runs. That's not enough information to say whether the cipher text has a bias. Instead, tell us the total number of times the character appeared, and the total number of cipher text characters. For example, "it appeared a total of 3125 times in 1000 runs of 200 characters each."
Also, you need to be sure that you are talking about the raw output of a cipher. Cipher text is often encapsulated in an "envelope" like that defined by the Cryptographic Message Syntax. Of course, this enclosing structure will have predictable patterns.
Well I guess it depends. Repetition in general is bad thing if it represents the same data.
Considering you are encoding it have you looked at data to see if you have something that repeats in those counts?
In order to understand better you gotta know what kind of encryption does it use.
It could be just coincidence that they are repeating.
But if repetition comes from same data, then it can be a red flag because then frequency counts can be used to decode it.
What kind of encryption are you using? Home made or some industry standard?
It depends on how are you encrypting your data.
Base64 encoding a string may count as light obfuscation, but it is NOT encryption. The purpose of Base64 encoding is to allow any sort of binary data to be encoded as a safe ASCII string.