Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Security

RC5-64 Success 410

Posted by michael
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Peter Trei writes "After over four years of effort, hundreds of thousands of participants, and millions of cpu-hours of work, Distributed.net has brute forced the key to RSA Security's 64 bit encryption challenge, winning a US$10,000 prize. Still outstanding Challenges carry prizes as high as $200,000. RSA's PR release is here. d.net's site has not yet been updated." Update: 09/26 16:59 GMT by CN : The good folks over at SlashNET are having a forum with the distributed.net crew on Saturday at 21:00 UTC. It'll be a great time to meet some of the people who made this possible.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RC5-64 Success

Comments Filter:
  • d.net's site update (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChronoZ (561096) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:40AM (#4336720)
  • by chrysalis (50680) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:42AM (#4336742) Homepage
    Funny. The RC5 algorithm has just been removed from OpenBSD because of copyrights.


  • Heh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GigsVT (208848) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:42AM (#4336745) Journal
    While it's debatable that the duration of this project does much to devalue the security of a 64-bit RC5 key by much, we can say with confidence that RC5-64 is not an appropriate algorithm to use for data that will still be sensitive in more than several years' time.

    Heh, it took a world-wide effort of thousands of computers over 1700 days. I don't think there is any debate at all; they proved the opposite of what they set out to prove. :)
    • Re:Heh ?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by veddermatic (143964)
      I'd say not.. in several years time, the average laptop / home PC will be able to crank out the work that the distributed project did in a week or so... meaning in a few years, an individual will be able to decrypt RC5-64 data in a realistic timeframe for (mis)use.

      That's the point.... is RC5-64 (effectively) safe today? It sure the heck is.. this project proved that! Will it be safe in 5 years? Heck no, and that was the point.
      • Ok... "thousands of computers" and 1700 days. Let's call it 2000 computers putting in full 24 hours days. And let's assume that Moore's Law will remain true...

        Cracking RC5-64 took 384,000 computer/hours today. There are 168 hours in a week. So, for one computer to crack RC5-64 in a matter of weeks (less than five) would require a computer about 460 times faster than what we have now; assuming moore's law keeps going, we'll get those in about 13 years (2015).

        In five years (48 months), computers will be about 2.6 times as fast powerful as they are now; it'll still take over 147,000 computer-hours to crack the same code; one computer would take 16 years to crack that.

        (The same 2000 computers, once upgraded, could replicate their feat in a measly 654 days--still, two years.)

        And, of course, this assumes that Moore's Law remains constant, there's no overhead, and distributed.net's brute force test is a good example; it could have gotten lucky, or it could have taken them an unusually short time to find the right code.

        For a realisitic cracking scenerio, let's say our cracker has ten computers and wants to crack the code in a week... he'd still have to wait 8 years to be able to do it, and who'd want to bother with 13 year old data for cracking, anyway?
        • So, for one computer to crack RC5-64 in a matter of weeks (less than five) would require a computer about 460 times faster than what we have now; assuming moore's law keeps going, we'll get those in about 13 years (2015).

          You forget THE major point of Distributed.net: distributed computing. If you put 2 computers to the task, you already cut by half the time needed. Have more money? Put 3000 CPUs (go read the nVidia and ATI tour at Anandtech to see if somebody can afford those now) through it, and the time will shrink by the same amount.

          And regarding the time needed to crack it, I get a couple orders of magnitude greater than 384000 computer*hours. More akin to (quoting the PR) 46000*790*24=872 million computer*hour (using an Athlon XP 2GHz). A single CPU computer wouldn't be able to do it on a human scale time (would be about 100000 years), you absolutely need more than one computer to live to see the result.

          For a realisitic cracking scenerio, let's say our cracker has ten computers and wants to crack the code in a week... he'd still have to wait 8 years to be able to do it, and who'd want to bother with 13 year old data for cracking, anyway?

          I probably miss something about why the 8 years becomes 13, but there are some things that don't change in time, and could be used by somebody even in a few years. My credit card number hasn't changed since I first got it, same thing for my bank account. The goal is not for it to be secure only now, but also in the future. You may think about other examples involving national security if you prefer.

      • You're very bad at math.

        that laptop would have to run at about 30000000000MHz, assuming that (and this is probably low) 1000000 CPU years assuming PIII/500MHz were spent on this project...

        Good luck finding one of those
    • Re:Heh (Score:5, Informative)

      by Papineau (527159) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:03PM (#4336975) Homepage

      Not really. If you consider that over 5 years, the average keyrate is 105.5 GKeys/sec, and the latest day averages were somewhere around 180 GKeys/sec, it means the same thing could have been finished in almost half the time, if it was started now with today's computers. Moore's law being what it is, if it really was started again now, it would take around half that time again, because more powerful CPUs are to be unveiled in that timeframe.

      By their own estimates, it would take ~46000 Athlon XP 2GHz (now, where are you to find those right now?) to have 270 GKeys/sec (their peak rate in 5 years), which gives completing the keyspace in 790 days. Who would buy that much CPUs? Good question. With 2 dual MP motherboards in 1U (too lazy to find a link, I know somebody offers something like that), it would only take about 300 40U racks. Would you bet future national security on it? I don't think I would (and I'm not even american).

      What it really shows is that brute-force can succeed, given enough time. But of course the more effective way to attack an encrytion algorithm is on the algorithmic side, because it helps you to find not only one cleartext, but all cleartexts encrypted with that algorithm.

      • Wait a second...didn't I just see an article on Slashdot about how the Internet transfers about 2 TB of data per day?

        105GKeys/sec * 8 bytes/key / 2TB/day * 86,400 sec/day * 100% = 35,437.5%

        Those numbers don't add up. If, however, I change 2TB/day to 2TB/sec:

        105GKeys/sec * 8 bytes/key / 2TB/sec * 100% = 41% of the Internet's traffic.

        There's gotta be something a bit off here...My mind just doesn't want to register that almost half of the internet's bandwidth is part of a massive computer cluster.
  • I suppose I can shut dnetc down for now and give my processors a rest. Congratulations to whoever got the lucky key.
  • Nice, except for the fact it doesn't matter. It wasn't even the real encryption code. Also, it never would have happened without distributed processing, so this isn't a real demonstration of computing power, but actually a demonstration of distributed computing power.
  • by mh_tang (307188) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:44AM (#4336768)
    So tell me, was the answer "42"?
  • FINALLY. (Score:5, Funny)

    by KFury (19522) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:45AM (#4336777) Homepage
    Does this mean I can go back to alien hunting now?
    • Don't count out distributed.net completely. They do have other projects, like the Optimal Goulomb Ruler project and the various blitz project which pop up now and then for other encryption technologies.

      And IMHO, alien hunting is a waste of time, since we still don't really have a clue as to how they would communicate. I mean, if they are as advanced as we are, then that means that they would be at least hundreds of lightyears away from us (by consensus opinion) and therefore: their radio sigs would also be hundreds of years old and wouldn;t give us enough insight to them anyway. Besides, how do we know which freqs to check? How do we know that they don't allocate spectrum EXACTLY like we do?

      I'm just going to go back to the Mersenne project for now. They have a huge check waiting for the next person to find a Mersenne prime.

      Besides that: There's always RC5-72....
    • Re:FINALLY. (Score:5, Informative)

      by McCart42 (207315) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @01:04PM (#4337490) Homepage
      No, you can still work on the optimal golomb ruler [distributed.net] project (OGR), which is an interesting distributed project that becomes exponentially more difficult for each added mark. Currently they are working on a 25-mark ruler, and verifying the 24-mark ruler. From the linked page: "OGR's have many applications including sensor placements for X-ray crystallography and radio astronomy. Golomb rulers can also play a significant role in combinatorics, coding theory and communications, and Dr. Golomb was one of the first to analyze them for use in these areas."
    • You just wait and see who has the last laugh when SETI@home manages to detect an alien signal only to discover that it's rc5 encrypted! :)
    • Re:FINALLY. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Matt2000 (29624) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:58PM (#4340324) Homepage

      Seriously though, can anyone tell me what the attraction to the d.net project was? It seems like a colossal waste of cycles to me. Everyone knew it was going to be successful, it was just a matter of wasting enough time to eventually find the right block.

      Now that it's over, what do we have to show for it? A whole lot of nothing it seems.
  • by screenbert (253482) <screenbert AT hotmail DOT com> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:45AM (#4336782) Homepage Journal
    I've always thought that if you use brute force then you aren't really finding a flaw in the design. Brute force is just that, and as keys become bigger and bigger (yes even with bigger and bigger processors) it becomes harder with this method. Especially since it won't do you much good unless you can do it in a short amount time, minutes instead of months or years.

    I think those that find actual flaws in the design or math are worthy of admiration. For good reading on the history of such read the code book. It will truly broaden your understanding.

    3 legged dog walks into a bar, says" who shot my paw?
    • This is true, but all this was is a huge publicity stunt from RSA's perspective. I mean, what better way to get people to think a particular method is secure for what they do. When you can say that even with 10,000 dollars of incentive, the best anyone was able to do to break a single key was brute force in four years using the computing power of many thousands of computers? And this is now considered low-grade encryption, they can point at their still unmet challenges as proof for their even better security.

      You are right that the people who find fundamental flaws in cryptography approaches are more informative and helpful in the advancement of the technology, but this wasn't so much about advancing crypto technology. This was about money for the sponsor. This was about seeing just what the idle computing power of thousands computers can do for the geeks. Those seeking to advance anything with their processors are doing folding or setiathome. Not to show disrespect for distributed.net, it's cool in its own ways, but it isn't going to advance cryptography at all, just marketing and 'geek' factor.
    • Especially since it won't do you much good unless you can do it in a short amount time, minutes instead of months or years.

      It depends on what you're encrypting. If you encrypt everything, then being able to crack one message in a couple of years won't help much. If, however, you know which message you want decrypting, then it's just a matter of waiting. Some information isn't time critical.

    • Blockquoath the poster:
      I've always thought that if you use brute force then you aren't really finding a flaw in the design. Brute force is just that, and as keys become bigger and bigger (yes even with bigger and bigger processors) it becomes harder with this method. Especially since it won't do you much good unless you can do it in a short amount time, minutes instead of months or years.
      From the press release [distributed.net]:
      So, after 1,757 days and 58,747,597,657 work units tested the winning key was found! While it's debatable that the duration of this project does much to devalue the security of a 64-bit RC5 key by much, we can say with confidence that RC5-64 is not an appropriate algorithm to use for data that will still be sensitive in more than several years' time.
    • Technically the flaw you are exposing is a short key length...
  • IRC discussion (Score:4, Informative)

    by dotgod (567913) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:46AM (#4336790)
    From the distributed.net announcment [distributed.net]

    Also, please consider joining us on SlashNET IRC on Saturday 28-Sep-2002 @ 21:00 UTC (5:00PM EDT) for an online Q+A session on the RC5-64 project and the future plans for the distributed.net network.

  • Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dirtside (91468) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:49AM (#4336814) Journal
    While this is an admirable achievement, I found another distributed computing project which I think is more worthwhile -- namely, Folding @Home [stanford.edu], which is a distributed protein-folding simulation effort. This is the kind of research that will end up curing things like Alzheimer's, and I think it's a better use of your processing time than brute-forcing encryption keys (or even SETI, or Primenet). I encourage everyone to participate in F@H instead, as I think it will provide a greater benefit to us all in the long run.

    Of course, some on /. may need to be reminded that they are indeed free to run whatever distributed computing software they feel like; I am merely requesting that they run this one.
    • Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Informative)

      by eddy (18759)

      Yes, and don't forget genome@home [stanford.edu]. You might consider joining the Wicked Old Atheists [gazonk.org] even :-)

    • Don't forget that in _Engines of Creation_ [amazon.com], K. Eric Drexler devotes a whole chapter (i think, it's been awhile) to protein folding and how it may lead to the first 'nano-machines' in a sense. If we know how certain proteins fold perhaps we can get them to fold im just the right way to make the first crude nano-assembler. Although the book *was* written quite a bit ago (1987 I belive), so I'm not sure if the nanotech community still looks to protein folding as a possible method for building assemblers.

      And yes, I run a F@H client on my box damn near 24/7. I like how it's very conservative with it's use of resources when I run other app's. I can play Counter-Strike or UT2K2 and not even have to terminate it.

  • ...several computers during this 64bit phase of RSA cracking. Started with a K6-233, then K62-450, dual Celeron 450, Duron 800, Athlon 1GHz, Athlon 1.4GHz and now AthlonXP 1700+ @ 2000+. I wonder what we will be running when (if?) RC5-72 is cracked.
  • by watanabe (27967) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:58AM (#4336917)
    I think many posters here are missing the point of this. RSA wants people to crack these weaker crypto offerings; it makes their story better, not worse.
    • They know exactly how insecure RC5-64 is. They want other IT groups, industry groups and tech managers to know it. The easiest way to do that is to offer open challenges with cash prizes. It's never hard for RSA to up their bit-length to 4096, say, a year before 2048 RSA is broken, and someone collects their $200,000. It is hard to make PHBs understand that RC5-64 is not secure if nobody has broken it.
    Secondly, Distributed.net clearly isn't doing it for the cash. I didn't do it for the cash, either. (Although I wouldn't have minded winning.) They're doing it because:
    • Breaking codes gives nerds their kicks.
    • Building a distributed computing architecture is a difficult and interesting problem.
    With current technology, as RSA likes to demonstrate, the winners are the cryptographers, not the cryptologists (the code breakers.) Quantum computing may change that, and make the cryptologists the winners. Until then, RSA can happily give cash prizes for increasing length keys: the numbers are on their side.
  • by WalterGR (106787) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @11:58AM (#4336918) Homepage
    From the press release - "a coordinated team of computer programmers and enthusiasts, known as distributed.net, has solved the RC5-64 Secret-Key Challenge."

    If you remove a single element - the $10,000 award offered by RSA - then the press release would read more like,

    "A group of degenerate hackers [sic] cracked an encryption method owned by RSA Security Inc. The company has contacted law enforcement authorities, and an attempt to track down these hackers [sic] is currently under way. Under the DMCA, these criminals, when caught, faces sentances of up to..."
  • by HoserHead (599) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:05PM (#4336986)
    It's sad, really, that so much focus has moved off Distributed.net to SETI@Home and the other distributed computing projects when Distributed.net was one of the real pioneers of this style of computing (that is, harnessing regular people's CPU time).

    In one of my CS classes, we were discussing distributed computing, and a question of any well-known distributed computing projects was asked. I answered "Distributed.net" - and the instructor promptly asked "What's that?" The next student to respond, of course, said SETI: the answer he was looking for.

    Maybe I'm biased, as the former maintainer of distributed-net for Debian, but has Distributed.net really become this unimportant and forgotten?

    • Not for me, there is no bigger waste of CPU cycles than SETI. Any computer I ever find running SETI@home gets a severe beating and a quick download of D.net. If you want to burn those unused cycles do it on something that matters.
      • If you want to burn those unused cycles do it on something that matters

        And brute forced cracking of an encryption algorithm, which everyone who cares knows is possible anyway, matters?

        No thanks... I'd rather have my spare cycles go to something that will help cure cancer, Alzheimer's, or the like. (Yes, I know, d.net has "partnered" with UD on the cancer bit, but it's not a d.net project).

        Frankly, I'd give the edge to SETI@home over d.net's projects. But that's just me. I do think that there's alien life out there, but I doubt it's trying to communicate in a fashion that we'll be able to find with SETI@home.
  • Well, at least my G3 and G4 at home will get to spin down at nights now... and I can dedicate all the spare cpu on my sparc at work to seti :)
  • "Our peak rate of 270,147,024 kkeys/sec is equivalent to 32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines ...."

    800 MHz G4 is faster crunching the keys than a 2 GHz Athlon XP

    I am reading that right?
  • by Nugget (7382) <nugget@distributed.net> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:13PM (#4337063) Homepage
    While the prospect of a false-positive key was the subject of much speculation during RC5-56, we did in fact encounter exactly such a beast during RC5-64.

    In the interests of speed, only the first "block" of the crypted text is decrypted and evaluated for a solution. This means that it's possible for a key which isn't the correct key to report as a false positive because although it doesn't decrypt the text it does yield a plaintext which matches "The unkn" for the first eight bytes.

    There's been much speculation and napkin scribbling on just how frequently such false positives might present themselves. The general consensus seemed to be that such an occurrence is extremely improbable but in a dataset the size of 2**64, extremely improbable may still yield a nonzero frequency.

    The key 0xBB27D52F60FD932C does, indeed, decrypt to a plaintext for which the first eight bytes match the known plaintext for the contest. The remainder of the decrypted text, however, is just garbage. This key has actually been returned by clients twice over the course of the contest.

    In August 1999, "Edward Scissorhands" [distributed.net] turned in the key.

    Again in July 2000, Team RC5 Chile [distributed.net] submitted it. Since they're unfortunately using a shared email address for their team, there's no way to know which individual was the submitter.

    I wasn't the winning key, but was a really unique "near miss". It also represents an interesting datapoint regarding the RC5 algorighim. A brute-force search is really the only way to conclusively determine the liklihood of such false positives.

  • You know, anybody with a pencil can figure out how many computation cycles it will take to produce 50% probability that the key will crack. Then, it seems like the only trick to it is to sit there and wait a few months while your CPUs heat the room, and then you eventually find out whether it will crack before the 50% probability or after.

    In the process, we have learned absolutely nothing. It's like a game where I say "I'm thinking of a place, can you guess where it is?" Then hundreds of thousands of you would send in guesses, and eventually you would get it. What a pointless exercise that would be! I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference here. In a way this is even less interesting, because you know that sometime the code will crack. There is no element of surprise at all in the results, and once we have it, we learn... nothing at all.

    In the process, how much electricity do we waste chugging through the code? Did one of you clever people calculate how many fewer tons of CO2, soot and radioactive waste would have been produced if you had just left your Athlons turned off? How about all the air conditioners you used to cool the rooms the Athlons live in?

    For the next challenge, I suggest that you just pretend your CPU is working, and in a few months (time determined randomly according to the probability of cracking if your computers had been on), the guy who issued the challenge will pretend that his code was cracked and announce what his oh-so-important secret message was. That would sure make me happier--and it's not like we'd lear any less that way.

    (Notice also that my criticism doesn't apply to SETI or protein folding projects. At least they give us a chance of finding out something.)

  • Dnet was much more lucky with the RC5 project. We found the key with 12% of the keyspace left to go (with odds of 135 to 1).

    For the last project, CSC, we had to exhaust the entire keyspace and then go back and recheck some of the work.

    Congrats to everyone who participated.

    And just for kicks, here are my final stats on the project:
    Rank: 38501 (out of 331,286)
    First block: 25-Sep-1999
    Last Block: 22-Sep-2002
    Days working: 1,094 (out of 1,796)
    Total Blocks: 226,544 (out of 61,015,324,138!)
    The odds were 1 in 3,802,292 that I would have found the lucky key before anyone else.

  • by Scutter (18425) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:21PM (#4337131) Journal
    I'm surprised at how stunned and emotional I am upon reading this. After personally investing almost four years and uncounted trillions of clock cycles for over half a quadrillion keys and just like that it's over with. *sigh*

    I watched the progression of the computer industry grow just by watching the gradual increase of my daily keyrate.

    Four years ago when I first started, I was going through 52 blocks a day. Yesterday, I went through 2784 blocks. Looking at the daily graph is practically a history of my life for four years. I can see spikes where my company bought a dozen computers and I borrowed their cycles for a couple of days while I configured them. I can see dips where I turned my computers off to go on vacation for a weekend. There's the whole flat area from last year when I didn't have a job and so had limited access to extra CPU cycles.
  • by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:22PM (#4337144) Journal

    300 Watts * 1 million hours = 300,000 kilowatt hours. 300,000 kilowatt hours * $0.10 = $30,000.

    I wonder how many U.S. and Iraqi soldiers died to make this great display of wasted energy possible.

    • None. Your post isn't just insulting, it's idiotic. How many soldiers had to die to provide power for slashdot for the last year? How many had to die so we could play Playstation. The answer is none, always has been none, and will always be none. If you want to protest military action by posting snide comments on the web, at least do it with comments that are relevant, not bullshit rhetoric intended to pull at the audience's emotions.
  • See, 64-bit can be broken in four years. Time to move to 65-bit, that'll keep us safe until 2010 or so. Wake up, people!
  • by BovineOne (119507) <bovine@@@distributed...net> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:30PM (#4337192) Homepage Journal
    Naturally there is a lot of interest about finding the solution, but what about "almost solutions" found by false-positive hits?

    In the interests of speed, only the first "block" of the crypted RC5-64 text is decrypted and evaluated for a solution. This means that it's possible for a key which isn't the correct key to report as a false positive because although it doesn't decrypt the text it does yield a plaintext which matches "The unkn" for the first eight bytes.

    The key 0xBB27D52F60FD932C does, indeed, decrypt to a plaintext for which the first eight bytes match the known plaintext for the contest. This key has actually been submitted three times over the course of the contest, once by three different users.

    In August 1999, again in July 2000. Most recently, the bymer@ukrpost.net worm found the false-positive on November 6, 2001. There potentially could be problems identifying the
    owner of that worm-infected machine and having to explain the circumstances of a winning solution, but fortunately that was only a false positive.

    Fortunately, we eventually found the actual key. But because we were seeing these legitimate false-positives being reported throughout the duration of the contest, we had full confidence that our network and our clients were functioning properly and that we would eventually find the actual solution in time.
  • I'm surprised the distributed team is thinking of going to the RC5-72 bit challenge. Even with the average CPU speeds increasing, it'll take another 5 years probably to crack it.

    Given the payout for this stuff, I'd have expect some expert cryptographers are working on the 128 bit algorithm, looking for cracks to reduce the brute force time...that's what I would be doing at this point had I the skill...not focusing on the crummy brute force attacks....

  • by Brigadier (12956) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @12:37PM (#4337262)

    In further news all participating Distributed.net users will be issued a check for 1 Cent.
  • How about we all focus our attention to something worth while now? Seti is cool, but we don't have any direct and imediate gains for finding alien life a billion light years away. The information we'd be communicating would be ... a billion years old.

    How about Cancer research? It's already been proven beneficial.

    http://members.ud.com/about/getting_started/

    UD!! Sign up today and get cracking!
    (unfortunately they only have win32/intel clients, doh!)

    ~LoudMusic
  • Wouldn't a contest like this be illegal under the DMCA? True, the company sponsored the contest, and asked that you try to break it, but technically speaking, couldn't they be prosecuted for it? It was for research, but the DMCA is so vaguely worded that I think that this contest was illegal.
    • No. (Score:2, Informative)

      by yerricde (125198)

      True, the company sponsored the contest, and asked that you try to break it, but technically speaking, couldn't they be prosecuted for it?

      The DMCA's circumvention ban applies only to access control mechanisms on copyrighted works, when such mechanisms are broken without authorization. The RC5-64 encryption is not an access control mechanism on a copyrighted work.

  • From distributed.net [distributed.net]'s report;

    Our peak rate of 270,147,024 kkeys/sec is equivalent to 32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines
    Hmmmm..... ;)
  • Clients turn off? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jon Shaft (208648)
    Well aparently the keyserevers are shut off. I have all my rc5 installations set to JUST do rc5 and not DES or OGR... and one more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

    Anyhow, my client just starts, tries to connect to the server and gets and error message like the following...

    [Sep 26 17:32:37 UTC] NetUpdate::Connect handshake failed. (0.168)

    So atleast it's not going to sit there and make up random keys anymore. It may have been a slight security risk (possibly) but maybe dnet should've sent a special request that would show a little message when you click on the cow (or make the cow change color so you would click on it.. ie Chocolate cow) so you'd know to uninstall it if you wern't paying attention to the news.

    Oh well, I've been doing rc5 since my junior year of high school and have a lot of memories of installign in, uninstalling it, taking over a friends install, and him taking over mine. It was a lot of good times for this little silly program... installing it on all the computers in high school was a blast. It was truly a great forum to bring a lot of geeks together. The Slashdot team, 2600, FreeBSD and Linux Groups... all competing in a silly encryption game. :)

  • Here are some Perl scripts that make use of a modified version of Crypt::RC5 to decrypt the RC5-64 solution, the RC5-56 solution, and the RC5-64 false-positive.

    http://www1.distributed.net/~bovine/perl-rc5/ [distributed.net]
  • by EvilStein (414640) <{ten.pbp} {ta} {maps}> on Friday September 27, 2002 @03:07AM (#4342374) Homepage
    I left a machine turned on at one of my former jobs, and it's crunching rc5 blocks still.

    I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT IS!

    Is there any way to find out where the rogue machine is? heh..
    It's submitting about 200 blocks a day. I just wish that I could FIND it...

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.

Working...