Experiment Nerds and haX0rs gtfih

[svgmn1]

does anyone here know a good genuine tool for cracking into an encrypted .rar? can't remember the pass or anything remotely close to the pass, I used a hash crack tool and this shit froze my laptop it just used all the resources at once, I'm sure there's a better way.....

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Unfortunately I don't but have a bump. I hope some other brocel can help you regain access to your files.

 

[svgmn1]

Unfortunately I don't but have a bump. I hope some other brocel can help you regain access to your files.

 

[based_meme]

Please visit wikiHow directly

Good luck, brocel.

 

[svgmn1]

Please visit wikiHow directly

Good luck, brocel.

another hash tool, I hoped there was some other method in the last decade


I guess I'll have to brute force this thing and let it run as long as it can

 

[based_meme]

another hash tool, I hoped there was some other method in the last decade


I guess I'll have to brute force this thing and let it run as long as it can

If anyone can pierce the AES-256 without brute force, they'll be visited by the NSA the next day and probably the SCS the day after.

I'm sorry brocel, but whatever data you had in there is practically lost to the void.

 

[nazianime]

does anyone here know a good genuine tool for cracking into an encrypted .rar? can't remember the pass or anything remotely close to the pass, I used a hash crack tool and this shit froze my laptop it just used all the resources at once, I'm sure there's a better way.....

Nope, you can do dictionaries attacks. That might be faster or use a quantum computer.

 

[slavcel11]

wishmaster.exe

 

[turbosperg]

another hash tool, I hoped there was some other method in the last decade


I guess I'll have to brute force this thing and let it run as long as it can

Get a powerful computer and let it run for a few years, that should give you a chance to crack it, especially if you have a few hints on the password.

If anyone can pierce the AES-256 without brute force, they'll be visited by the NSA the next day and probably the SCS the day after.

They routinely break encryption without brute force (using side-channel and dictionary attacks, for instance). Moreover, basically all available tools on the market have backdoors and implementation bugs that make the encryption much weaker than the theoretical proposal.

 

[glutty]

They routinely break encryption without brute force (using side-channel and dictionary attacks, for instance). Moreover, basically all available tools on the market have backdoors and implementation bugs that make the encryption much weaker than the theoretical proposal.

My guess is that the reason they don't use them is cause the developers might patch the issues if it ever does, at least with anything Open Source. I remember that the NSA had a backdoor in Windows that they had but never used because they saved it for when mass scale cyberattacks occur.

 

[turbosperg]

My guess is that the reason they don't use them is cause the developers might patch the issues if it ever does, at least with anything Open Source. I remember that the NSA had a backdoor in Windows that they had but never used because they saved it for when mass scale cyberattacks occur.

Every single executable freely available has backdoors in it. Especially open source applications.

You can look at your code however long you like, the issue is not with the code, the issue is how the hardware runs it. Your code may well be "perfect" to the last assembler instruction but the CPUs don't ever run it the way you intend it to, they do their own thing, scheduling instructions, caching memory etc. in biased ways thay allow side-channel attacks.

 

[glutty]

Every single executable freely available has backdoors in it. Especially open source applications.

You can look at your code however long you like, the issue is not with the code, the issue is how the hardware runs it. Your code may well be "perfect" to the last assembler instruction but the CPUs don't ever run it the way you intend it to, they do their own thing, scheduling instructions, caching memory etc. in biased ways thay allow side-channel attacks.

It's so Over

 

[based_meme]

They routinely break encryption without brute force (using side-channel and dictionary attacks, for instance). Moreover, basically all available tools on the market have backdoors and implementation bugs that make the encryption much weaker than the theoretical proposal.

Yes, they do, but I wasn't suggesting brute force.

Sorry, I misread you.

 

[svgmn1]

Yes, they do, but I wasn't implying brute force.

you stand correct, a sidenote on that topic I believe rijindael block has been fully broken by big brother even at higher key sizes, and to this day I believe two fish and other ciphers were deliberately excluded in the selection process for the security standard since they were too op and it had little or nothing to do with performance.

 

[based_meme]

you stand correct, a sidenote on that topic I believe rijindael block has been fully broken by big brother even at higher key sizes, and to this day I believe two fish and other ciphers were deliberately excluded in the selection process for the security standard since they were too op and it had little or nothing to do with performance.

I think so too. The NSA isn't going to come out and honestly admit, "yup, this publicly available tool is uncrackable even by us." They're a fucking spy agency, after all. They have to be deceptive to mislead enemy states and keep their advantage hidden.