Re:NYU Accidentally Exposed Military Code-Breaking Computer
by tptacek on Thursday May 11, 2017 @03:29PM
(#14318783)
I think you're describing most KDF attacks, of which password hashes are particular (and easy) example. I can't think of an instance of this attack that isn't password hashes that is so widely deployed that it would be economical to invest in 9-figure supercomputers to attack it, but that obviously doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Re:NYU Accidentally Exposed Military Code-Breaking Computer
by dsl on Thursday May 11, 2017 @02:35PM
(#14318410)
Think about any software updates you do (Windows Update, apt, yum, etc). All these systems rely on distributing a cryptographic ally signed manifest of what each files hash should be.
If you can forge the hash of a file, or the signature on that manifest, there are hundreds of different ways you can easily replace one file for another in transit over the internet.
Re:NYU Accidentally Exposed Military Code-Breaking Computer
by tptacek on Thursday May 11, 2017 @03:09PM
(#14318671)
We're also not a supercomputer advance away from breaking SHA2. There are hash-designing cryptographers who believe we may never break SHA2 with conventional computers.
Re:NYU Accidentally Exposed Military Code-Breaking Computer
by schoen on Thursday May 11, 2017 @03:23PM
(#14318743)
That's a very different attack than I was looking for; you've described a second preimage attack, which would be considered a fundamental weakness of the hash. I was looking for a protocol where a comparatively small amount of signed data (let's say less than 90 bits) is kept secret, but can potentially be brute-forced on an appropriate supercomputer.
Re:NYU Accidentally Exposed Military Code-Breaking Computer
by ethbro on Thursday May 11, 2017 @03:07PM
(#14318655)
I'd guess something like Quantum Insert + targeting unprotected connections. Which I'd imagine there are still a lot of out there (circa pre-2000).
I'd be curious if there's any older network gear that provides a hash-based rather than connection-based security model. It seems like the thing that might have seemed like a good idea to a military 40 years ago.
Maybe protocols where the attacker has access to a signature over some data, but doesn't get access to the signed data in plaintext? Then the attacker could try to brute-force values of the signed data using the hash that forms the basis of the signature?