Slashdot Mirror


Xbox Private Key Distributed Computing Project

aeiz writes "The Neo Project has added "The Xbox Public Key Challenge" to it's distributed computing client. The aim is to compute the 2048 bit private key that Microsoft uses to sign Xbox media. If it is a success, modchips wouldn't be necessary. Now many Xbox hacking and scene sites have started groups in order to compete with one another." gee, only 2048 bits? No problem *cough cough*.

189 of 522 comments (clear)

  1. Relating.. by Karamchand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could anyone of you tell how much time/processnig power this will need in comparisson to things like the RSA challenge?
    Thank you.

    1. Re:Relating.. by Jimmy_B · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't remember just how large the key was for the last RSA challenge, but it certainly wasn't more than a kilobyte. If we assume it was a kilobyte, the difference in processing power required is a factor of 2^2048/2^1024 = 2^1024 ~= 1.8x10^308. So unless they've reduced the effective key size by a lot, there probably isn't enough matter in the universe to make the computers that would be required to break that key.

    2. Re:Relating.. by lrichardson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'd like to point out that IBM's demo of the 7 q-bit machine last year involved factoring a number ... which seemed to me to be pretty explicit about one intended use.

      Given the demo was last year, give it another year or so, and they'll have the beast large and stable enough to do the breaking in no time flat.

      As an aside, an earlier q-bit demo had 25 ops in 9 nanoseconds ... which scales to about 25 billion hertz, kinda leaving most Athlons and PIVs in the dust. That's 8 orders of magnitude faster, which, by the way Moore's law is going, would still take several years to achieve with mainstream processors...

    3. Re:Relating.. by cschieke · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm all for this effort, but as a pragmatist, I don't think that it's going to be very successful.

      Check out these stats from a "similar" project
      [paraphrased from the website...]

      The RC5-64 project was able to brute force a key in 1757 days using 58,747,597,657 work units tested the winning key was found!

      They completed 86,950,894 workunits on the best day. This is 0.12% of the total keyspace meaning that at the peak rate they could expect to exhaust the keyspace in 790 days.

      The 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 or (to use some rc5-56 numbers) nearly a half million Pentium Pro 200s.

      Over the course of the RC5-64 project, 331,252 individuals participated. They tested a toal of 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys.

      So the real question is did MS make the key length long enough? Given the example of approx 5 years, seems like it's close.

      later...
      chad

    4. Re:Relating.. by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 2

      As an aside, an earlier q-bit demo had 25 ops in 9 nanoseconds ... which scales to about 25 billion hertz, kinda leaving most Athlons and PIVs in the dust. That's 8 orders of magnitude faster.
      I'm sorry, faster than what? Your post is unclear.

      A billion hertz is one gigahertz.

    5. Re:Relating.. by CTho9305 · · Score: 2

      No, it is about 8 times faster. That is a LOT less than 8 orders of magnitude.

    6. Re:Relating.. by szakacs · · Score: 5, Informative
      If we assume it was a kilobyte, the difference in processing power required is a factor of 2^2048/2^1024 = 2^1024 ~= 1.8x10^308.

      I can't check it right now (the website is /.-ed), but the 2048 suggests we're talking about an asymmetric key in which case you're wrong. For an RSA key, about 10 additional bits double the strength of the encryption (instead of 1 bit for a symmetric key).

      I think you made the same mistake than this other poster:

      If the RSA crack took x^56 time, this one will need approx. x^2048.

      RSA != RC5

      RSA is asymmetric, RC5 is symmetric.

      Of course, it's still some 5*10^30 harder than a 1024 key...

    7. Re:Relating.. by interiot · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, the 2048-bit key is an RSA key (see here).

      RSA is currently providing monitary awards for groups who can crack a larger RSA key than has been cracked before. Here's a quote from the FAQ associated with that contest:

      • To date, the largest number of this type to be factored is 512 bits. It was factored in 1999 as part of the previous RSA Factoring Challenge, which this challenge replaces. See the announcement for information about this factorization. The 576-bit value is likely to be factored in the next year or so,
      • while RSA-2048 should stand for decades.
    8. Re:Relating.. by KilerCris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By the time it's brute forced no one will care about it anymore. I think there's a better chance with getting it leaked by some disgruntled MS programmer.

    9. Re:Relating.. by pangur · · Score: 3, Funny

      It will take approximately 5 libraries of Congress.

      Oh, wait...

    10. Re:Relating.. by capnjack41 · · Score: 2
      Quantum computing is about much more than how many cycles per second it can run (of course it doesn't hurt that it goes faster anyway). Increasing the number of operations to per second to dozens of billions is almost child's play, compared to what quantum computers can do.

      I have no idea as to exactly how they work, with the "being in two states at once" deal; but allegedly, instead of a computation requiring, say, exponential (like 2^n) time on a conventional machine, it takes only polynomial (or smaller?) time, which is a HUGE win (much more so than even consistently linearly increasing numbers of flops). Essentially, ALL of the key possibilities can be done "simultaneously" and the correct result is the one that gets reported.

      If I'm wrong about the exponential->polynomial thing, someone please correct me...

      Read this.

    11. Re:Relating.. by new-black-hand · · Score: 5, Funny
      er, i don't have a calculator on me...

      And you typed this post into a computer?

    12. Re:Relating.. by weave · · Score: 5, Funny
      So unless they've reduced the effective key size by a lot, there probably isn't enough matter in the universe to make the computers that would be required to break that key.

      Yeah, but there's always the chance you get lucky and happen upon it early, plus it's more likely that you'll crack this one than there is finding aliens in white noise (*ducks*)

    13. Re:Relating.. by fwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Faster than a 3GHz processor, I assume, which would make it about 8 times faster, not 8 orders of magnitude. Plus, it's not taking into account how many ops a P IV or Athlon could do in one cycle...

    14. Re:Relating.. by Temporal · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, for a 64-bit key, it took five years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but at that rate, won't the 2048-bit key only take about 5 * 2^(2048 - 64), or a little over 2^1986 years to compute? I think that's somewhere around 10^587 times the age of our universe.

      By that time, we'll all be playing Duke Nukem Forever on our Itanium-based systems running GNU/HURD and the Fesco windowing system. Open source software will have gone mainstream, giving us no reason to care about hacking the X-Box. Right?

    15. Re: Relating.. by pjrc · · Score: 2
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but at that rate, won't the 2048-bit key only take about 5 * 2^(2048 - 64), or a little over 2^1986 years to compute?

      With RSA, the key is a multiplication of other numbers and the goal is to factor the key into primes (or numbers that are "likely" primes). The vast majority of cases don't need to be considered (eq, all even numbers, all multiples of 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on).

      That is why public key lengths are so long. They're fundamentally different that "symetric" keys, where you must try every single number (assuming the algorithm doesn't have known "weak" numbers that are intentionally avoided and all 2^N values are equally likely)

    16. Re:Relating.. by kasperd · · Score: 2

      Quantum computing is about much more than how many cycles per second it can run

      Yes indeed. I don't remember the complexity of factorization on a quantum computer, but I don't think we should worry about the speed being 1MHz or 1GHz. What we should worry about right now is the storage size. We just cannot fit a 2048 bit key into 7 bits of storage. If building such a "large" quantum computer eventually suceeds, we will have far worse worries than Microsoft, X-Box, and Palladium.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    17. Re:Relating.. by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know only a little bit about encryption, so I may be completely talking out of my ass here (and feel free to educate me if I am), but I noticed this one point that you mentioned:

      The RC5-64 project was able to brute force a key in 1757 days using 58,747,597,657 work units tested the winning key was found!

      1,757 days is nearly 5 years, meaning that the project would have had to have started five years ago in order to have already been finished. My memory of where, exactly, computers were in 1997-1998 (depending on when the project finished, I'm not sure) is a little fuzzy, but I remember that in mid-1999, a 700mhz Pentium 3 was considered "high end" and the average Dell/Gateway type of computer was running a low-end processor like a Cyrix at roughly 200-300mhz. By comparison, it isn't out of the ordinary to find a 1.6-2ghz processor in a consumer PC right now and the sort of geeks that would make up a decent portion of this project probably have much faster processors than that and a lot more RAM. In addition to that, if Moore's Law were to hold, processors would be improving by at least 2ghz per year from now on instead of the 500-700mhz that they were in 1999.

      So really, doesn't the RC5-64 project essentially just show us the length of the race track without giving us any data about the speed of the cars that will be driving on it?

    18. Re:Relating.. by hpa · · Score: 2

      OK, here we go... here is a rather technical summary of what a quantum computer would do:

      Currently, one of the biggest unsolved problem is the "P != NP" presumption; although it has never been proven, it is widely assumed that the complexity class P (roughly defined as problems that can be *solved* in a reasonable amount of time) is not the same thing as complexity class NP (the class of problems which can be *verified* in a reasonable amount of time.) Most classes of cryptography, including all public-key cryptography, relies on this difference - the whole point is that it's too complex to solve the problem (find the secret key), but easy enough to verify the problem (decode the message given the secret key.)

      A properly designed quantum computer makes the distinction meaningless, because the quantum computer doesn't need to "solve" the problem in the traditional sense. Instead, it "verifies" the problem in parallel *for each possible key.* The one computation that ends with the key coming out as "valid" is allowed to decohere the system and thus immediately obliterates all the other computations. The only thing left is the valid key.

      In complexity theory, this is called a "nondeterministic computational model". It changes the bar for what is computational feasible from P to NP.

    19. Re:Relating.. by Sesse · · Score: 2

      Excuse me, but how would you sign anything with RC5, which is a symmetric cipher? You need an assymetric cipher (like, surprise... RSA) for that.

      /* Steinar */

      --
      (This comment is of course GPLed.)
    20. Re:Relating.. by interiot · · Score: 2

      Do you have any references to support your assertion that RSA isn't used in the XBOX, and that RC5 is? Because, so far, all the links I've seen (namely the one I gave in my earlier post) primarily mention RSA.

    21. Re:Relating.. by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      My memory of where, exactly, computers were in 1997-1998 is a little fuzzy [...]
      Tom Womack maintains a nifty x86 timeline.
      [...] but I remember that in mid-1999, a 700 MHz Pentium 3 was considered "high end"
      Close. According to the timeline, the fastest Pentium 3 you could get back in June 1999 ran at 550 MHz.
    22. Re:Relating.. by jonadab · · Score: 2

      > 2.96283e-1850 According to kcalc, anyway. I'm no math guru, so
      > I'm not totally sure what that means,

      It means different things to different people. To a physicist it
      probably sounds like a distance in meters or something. A math
      guru would immediately class it as epsilon. Non-technical people
      also have a word for this number: "zero"

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    23. Re:Relating.. by Uller-RM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can be sure that nobody at MSFT will actually have the private key. They'll have a black box there with the key in tamper-proof silicon. You get authorization to see the box, you put in a finished XBE with no signature, you get back out a signed executable, you're escorted from the room.

      At least, that's how I'd do it if I were in their position, since the key is the linchpin that's allowing MSFT to stay competitive by preventing unauthorized games or copying.

    24. Re:Relating.. by Uller-RM · · Score: 2

      It's pretty well thought out. Each of the sections in the XBE (analogous to the Win32 PE format, EXE) is checksummed using SHA-1. Each hash is stored in the header along with the byte offsets of each section. The entire header is then checksummed again with SHA-1, and the resulting hash is signed using 2048-bit RSA. The public key is stored in the XBox's BIOS.

      So, you're right about not needing the whole program. As far as we know there's no intermediate keys used.

      Given the reasonable assumption that the private RSA key has been selected several times and is sufficiently high to make a brute-force search infeasable, the only chance for running unsigned code without hardware modification will be somehow taking advantage of a security hole in a signed XBox program -- either the Dashboard (the software that comes up when an XBox is powered on without a game in the drive, a preferences/save-game manager and audio ripper/player) or in one or more titles produced by a third party.

    25. Re:Relating.. by ryanr · · Score: 2

      It's pretty well thought out. Each of the sections in the XBE (analogous to the Win32 PE format, EXE) is checksummed using SHA-1. Each hash is stored in the header along with the byte offsets of each section. The entire header is then checksummed again with SHA-1, and the resulting hash is signed using 2048-bit RSA. The public key is stored in the XBox's BIOS.

      In that case, it sounds like one would be better off trying to find a hash collision, and replacing one section of an already-signed program... say, a boot loader? That reduces the problem to "only" 160 bits or thereabouts.

      (Of course, now that I'm looking... I can't find one of those handy charts that tells me how many symmetric bits 2048 asymmetric is equivalent to... checking half of 160 bits may be worse that sieving 2048 bits...)

    26. Re:Relating.. by jafuser · · Score: 2

      And Star Wars Galaxies will still only be a few months away from release...

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  2. Dupe ... by moonbender · · Score: 2, Informative

    The story that dealt with this (as an add-on) isn't even off the main page yet. This is as much a dupe as this comment probably is by the time I press submit. sigh

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    1. Re:Dupe ... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      I don't know what sucks worse, the fact that they don't have enough bandwidth to handle a minor slashdotting, or the fact that they don't have a linux client.

      Looks like alot of people won't be cracking keys for these guys until next month.

  3. This one is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    --- Begin Microsoft Private Key --- 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 ... ... 666666666666666666666666666666666666666665 --- End Microsoft Private Key ---

  4. Well... by silvaran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they can borrow my CPU power... an Athlon 1600... that should take care of... let's see... one trillionth of a bit?

  5. But... by Majestix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok this may be a stupid question, but doesn't this violate that DMCA thingy that everyone is all concerned about? Just a thought.

    -Majestix-

    --
    --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
    1. Re:But... by Tom7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would it? The relevant section of the DMCA only bans the circumvention of mechanisms that control access to a copyrighted work. The private key itself isn't such a mechanism, as far as I know, though programs that use it probably would be. The DMCA is a bit vague, but it isn't so vague that it outlaws every possible kind of "hacking."

      It's a good idea to read the DMCA (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html), because in fact Microsoft or someone probably would make DMCA threats against this kind of activity. In that case it's good to understand the law, because such a letter often sounds pretty convincing and scary!

    2. Re:But... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The private key isn't a mechanism? Isn't that the essence of DeCSS?

      I think certainly distribution of the actual private key would violate the DMCA. But does distribution of keys which are not the private key qualify? I doubt it.

    3. Re:But... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      I think certainly distribution of the actual private key would violate the DMCA. But does distribution of keys which are not the private key qualify? I doubt it.

      Lol. So the effort to crack the key would be legal right up to the moment it succeeds.

      No matter what the DMCA says, MS is likely to try and squelch this anyway.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:But... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      If they're smart they'll promote it. Getting anti-Microsoft fanatics wasting CPU cycles on a project which isn't likely to come up with anything useful for the next decade is a good thing for Microsoft.

    5. Re:But... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're quite right on the DMCA. They may try an attack based on something along the lines of trade secrets if this attack is actually succesful, but all things considered, it's a pretty secure mechanism, so hopefully MS sees it this way.

    6. Re:But... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2
      Ok this may be a stupid question, but doesn't this violate that DMCA thingy that everyone is all concerned about? Just a thought


      Well, as far as I recall, the DMCA doesn't say anything about trying to circumvent anything, only about actually circumventing things, so the question of whether this is a DMCA violation is purely academic, since they aren't going to come anywhere near cracking it.

    7. Re:But... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      The key is analogous to a password, in both this case and the case of DeCSS. The thing which made DeCSS a legal problem was that it was a description of the lock, not the key -- It told how to decrypt the code using the key.

      The Xbox (apparently) uses RSA and therefore the decryption method is known. All we want is the key.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:But... by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Ok this may be a stupid question, but doesn't this violate that DMCA thingy that everyone is all concerned about? Just a thought.

      I'd just like to chime in here with the fact that whether or not it violates the DMCA does not matter. What matters is whether or not a judge will say, "That law doesn't even approach this, so you definitely have no case. Case dismissed". Given that it deals with computers and an encryption algorithm, a judge would probably let it go past a preliminary hearing and into a real trial, which is an automatic win for Microsoft because it's doubtful that the defendant would have enough money to let it stretch on for years.

    9. Re:But... by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      Cracking this key would "bypass a mechanism" but it would not "bypass a mechanism that limits access to a copyrighted work." We're talking about a key that is used for authentication, not encryption.

      Beware that if someone is able to crack this key, there will be a lot of very unhappy people out there who have been using and trusting the same technology (e.g. PGP). If this project succeeds, the world will have changed in a serious way that totally overshadows a relatively insignificant video game project.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:But... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Cracking this key would "bypass a mechanism" but it would not "bypass a mechanism that limits access to a copyrighted work." We're talking about a key that is used for authentication, not encryption.

      Isn't the xbox bios a copyrighted work?

    11. Re:But... by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      Isn't the xbox bios a copyrighted work?
      Yes, but the key-checker is not a mechanism for limiting access to the BIOS. If the key-checker can be said to be limiting access to anything, it's to the processor itself.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:But... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2
      I'm serious. If you're going to get technical, then so am I. I think it's clear that the DMCA is supposed to stop this. The question is whether or not it technically does.

      Even if we assume the processor is copyrighted, consider who holds that copyright (it ain't Microsoft) and whether that processor is available in products other than the XBox (which would make the XBox's mechanisms not "effectively" limit access).

      The fact that Microsoft doesn't own the copyright on the processor is directly analogous to the fact that Adobe doesn't own the copyright on most E-books.

      As for whether it matters that some processors are distributed freely, it doesn't. Just like the fact that Steven King gives away a few free books doesn't mean he can't protect other copies of the same book using Adobe's e-book format.

      If you're serious, I think you're trying to warp the DMCA's intent beyond even the MPAA's wildest dreams.

      The MPAA's dreams are rather irrelevant here, since we're not talking about motion pictures or anything remotely like them.

      Do you believe that the DMCA stops me from distributing a crack which extends the free trial on VMWare? Because I think that's certainly the intent, and I don't see how this is any different.

      Remember, stopping people from copying isn't the sole power given to Congress under the Copyright Clause. And the DMCA(*) doesn't mention copying at all.

      (*) Actually I should call it Section 1201, since the DMCA has many parts to it separate from the copyright protection systems.

  6. Re:hey by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a PC after you install windows on it.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  7. How to Compute Key Cracking? by 1stflight · · Score: 2

    I've always wondered how one computes how long it would take to crack a key? For example, how long would it take an top of the line Athlon to crack that 2048 bit key?

    1. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      It all depends - you could get it on the first try, or it could take trillions and trillions of calculations.

    2. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by BorgDrone · · Score: 4, Informative

      if you just try all possible keys, it would take 2^2048 attempts to try them all. it could be the first key you try but it could also be the last. on average you need (2^2048)/2 tries. you can measure how long it takes on average to try 1 key. multiply that by the number of tries, divide by the number of machines trying codes. and you'de get an estimate.

    3. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by 1stflight · · Score: 2

      My next question is how fast can a personal computer compute keys and try them?

    4. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by agurkan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is assuming the key has 2^2048 entropy. If that is so, it is hopeless, however if the entropy of the key is lower, which it is for many microsoft products, then it can be cracked in smaller amount of time. See Bruce Schreider's writings about this topic.

      --
      ato
    5. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by bo-eric · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is slightly incorrect. For normal symmetric key ciphers (DES, AES, IDEA, Blowfish, etc.) that is how you do it. This, though, is RSA, which is a asymmetric key cipher. This means that you have access to the public key, and you know that the public key is the product (as in multiplication) of the two parts of the private key, N=p*q. So, when bruteforcing, you only need to try 2^1024 keys, which is a lot better, but still infeasible. There are nice ways of doing better, though. The largest effort I know of is when the RSA-155 (512 bit) challenge was factored in 1999, using more than 35 cpu years. This would take about 2^512 times as long...

      --

      -- Free speech is only free if your time is worth nothing.
    6. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by BorgDrone · · Score: 2

      You mean all numbers between 0 and 2^2048 are prime?

      No, but is there a list of all prime numbers between 0 and 2^2048 ?
      The computer doesn't know which numbers are prime, so it has to at least check 2^2048 numbers to see if they are prime and if they are it takes a bit longer to check if it's the right prime. you'll still end up checking all numbers.

    7. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by Garion911 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't say all numbers... You can obviouly eliminate numbers that end in 0,2,4,5,6, and 8, since they are even, and/or divisible by 5. So already, you've reduced the set by 60%.

      --
      Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
    8. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by lenski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is guaranteed to be the last assuming the search stops on success... </irrestable extAttr="grin">

    9. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have. Games are signed by a private key, which only MS has. There is a public key in every Xbox, and they are all the same, because they all correspond to the same private key. The Xbox uses the public key to decrypt games. If the public key can be factored, the factors can be used to generate the private key, which can then be used to sign Linux. Linux would then run on any unmodified Xbox, and MS has no practical way to stop it.

      What part of that is so hard to understand?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    10. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 2

      You don't know what you're talking about. there are ways to factorize a 2048-bit number that are about, oh, 2^200 times more efficient than that.

    11. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by ssimpson · · Score: 2

      Which means that every x-box has a copy of the same MS public key to verify the codes authenticity, no? The private key ISN'T stored in the device, but rather in some vault in MS and is only dragged out to sign programs.

      --
      "Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
    12. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by kasperd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok so I havent passed the discrete matchs exam yet, but doesn't numbers that are divisible by 5 end in either 0 or 5 (thus beeing eliminated already)?

      Yes, that was also what was said.

      Why not numbers that end in 0,2,4,6,8 AND numbers where the total sum of the individual digits is divisible by 3?

      You can do almost that. In fact you wouldn't be looking on a decimal representation, but rather a binary representation. So computing the last digit of a decimal representation would take som computation time. Unless you are smart and keep the last digit in a seperate variable. Just adding one to a byte and starting from zero every time you reach ten would be a lot faster than computing the last digit every time.

      But in fact we can be even smarter than that. Why keep the last digit of a base 10 representation? It would be smarter to save the last digit of the number in a higher base, because there will be a larger fraction of digits that can be ruled out immediately. For example the case of divisibility by three would be trivial if we kept the last digit of a base 30 representation rather than base 10. I'd even go as far as base 210, which happens to be the product of the first four primes. Only 48 of the 210 possibilities would have to be tested. That has cut the number of cases down to 23%

      But we can be even smarter. Why even add only one each time, given the last digit we already know how many times we will have to add one before reaching the next candidate. So rather just keep an array telling us how much to add each time, then we don't even have to remember the last digit, but just an index in an array with 48 bytes.

      But why stop at base 210. Take another two primes and make the base 30030, only 5760 of those would have to be tested. So we would be down to 19% of the original search space. But here we notice that increasing the array by a factor 120 only saved us a few percent. And in fact each time we add another prime the size of the array grows faster and faster while the gain in reduction of search space gets smaller. So as soon as we hit the size of the L1 cache, we will probably gain no more. All in all we might have cut the search space by a factor four, maybe five or six, but no more.

      But for a problem of exponential complexity cutting the time usage by a constant factor doesn't really help. All our efforts to avoid candidates that are obviously not prime can be defeated by just using a key five bits larger. Those five bits would be enough to make the problem harder than before we used those tricks. And the price for those five bits in normal use of the key is close to nothing. In fact they already did add another five bits and then again some more.

      But we can be even smarter, first of all we obviously only have to verify divisors up to the square root of the number. Of course we'd already just do that, because we would be starting from zero and going upwards.

      But we can be even smarter, because trial and error is absolutely not the fastest way to factorize products of large primes. Other techniques like quadratic sieve would be a lot faster. And then all our smart ways to avoid obviously nonprimes is not usefull at all. The way to actually factorize is completely different.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    13. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by kasperd · · Score: 2

      For that matter, why not have one farm of computers sieving out all the primes

      AFAIK Erathostenes is the fastest algorithm for that task, but we would just not have enough memory for the bitmask. Secondly there are factorization algorithms faster than finding all the prime candidates.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    14. Re:How to Compute Key Cracking? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2

      This is from a somewhat outdated article on breaking PGP encryption, but the improvements in factoring technology since then have been incremental.

      It should take about 3*10^20 MIPS-years to factor a 2048-bit RSA key with the General Number Field Sieve, the fastest known algorithm. This means that on a top-of-the-line Athlon, it should take some 10^17 years, or a bit less due to multiple instructions per second. Even if they had a million of these, they couldn't break it in 100 billion years. And on top of that, the GNFS algorithm doesn't parallelize well, so they probably couldn't use it.

      In other words, I'd bet a lot of money they won't crack it. They'd have a better chance bribing an insider.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  8. Oh my, here we go again... by stevens · · Score: 4, Funny
    #include "duplicate_story.h"
    #define DUPE

    ...

    #ifdef DUPE
    # include "standard_rant.h"
    bitch();
    #endif /* DUPE */
  9. By the time you finish this: by Valar · · Score: 2

    There will be an XBOX 4. I'd stick with the modchips, kids. That said, good luck and way to stick it to them.

    1. Re:By the time you finish this: by Huge+Pi+Removal · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'd have thought that brute-forcing was the wrong way to go... what's wrong with good old social engineering? *Someone* at Microsoft must know the private key, just wardial them and blow your Cap'n Crunch whistle down the phone until they tell you :)

      --
      - Oliver

      The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
    2. Re:By the time you finish this: by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Funny

      By the time you finish this: There will be an XBOX 4

      By the time they finish this, XBoxes will have evolved into higher life forms and be enslaving us all.

      And I for one welcome our new X-shaped overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground deathmatch sessions.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:By the time you finish this: by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      so what?

      wouldnt you love to have some CHEAP mp3/dvd/light_server/whatever boxes that could be made to run without sourcing for modchips? they're going to sell it for some years if they are serious about making money with it..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  10. In other news... by glrotate · · Score: 2

    I just recieved my Matrix no-solder modchip and 120GB drive. The state of the Xbox scene is white hot. Nifty programs to manage your backups, play your media files, and even run linux are being updated daily, not to mention the activity in alt.binaries.cd.image.xbox The XBox was one hell of a gift this year.

    Woo Hoo

  11. Gee... by salimma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Provided Microsoft uses a proper public key infrastructure, brute-forcing this thing could potentially take forever

    2. This so that you can feel good subverting an X-Box by making it run Linux

    3. By that time the hardware would be definitely obsolete, or X-Box 2 would be out with programs signed with a different key

    4. And in any case, buying the X-Box already helps Microsoft. The more units sold, the more games developed.

    5. There are tons of other worthwhile distributed computing projects to do out there - Folding@Home, SETI@Home, Mersenne Prime Search etc.

    Grow up folks! Running Linux on a hacked X-Box is cool, yes, but this might be going too far...

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
    1. Re:Gee... by archnerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 4. And in any case, buying the X-Box already helps Microsoft. The more units sold, the more games developed.

      Nope. Remember the big story last month? Micros~1 is losing their ass on everything except Windows and Office. Obviously, Micros~1 makes money on each game license sold because all the cost is up-front with development. However, they're not going to be making money on the hardware any time in the near future. Therefore, people buying the X-box then not buying any games is pretty devestating.

    2. Re:Gee... by salimma · · Score: 2

      I do see the humour, but I would just like to point out that it might be the passphrase to the key, but the key is most probably generated using a pseudo random number generator (PRNG) algorithm.

      Like the one used by PGP and GnuPG: on Linux it would take input from /dev/random, and ask you to randomly type on the keyboard, click the mouse on windows etc. to increase randomness.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    3. Re:Gee... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 3, Interesting
      1. Provided Microsoft uses a proper public key infrastructure, brute-forcing this thing could potentially take forever

      Hello, earth calling Salimma, do you copy? We're talking about Microsoft here. Either the public key is crackable within a few weeks or months or someone ought to leak this out to the media so MS shareholders can question MS why the products they use themselves are so secure, in contrary to the products they sell, because I have yet to see a Windows shipped with SSH 2 or similiar encryption based remote terminal capabilities. Let alone with an encryption which uses a 2048 bits key.

    4. Re:Gee... by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Funny
      Don't worry, the key's probably something like "Sony engineers suck donkey balls" written backwards ;)

      I'm imagining something more like, "one key to rule them all" :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    5. Re:Gee... by exhilaration · · Score: 2
      Actually, Windows 2000 Terminal Server has pretty decent 128 bit encryption - perfect for remote administration. And yet, Microsoft's "Remote Desktop" is still far more responsive than either VNC or pcAnywhere, both running with their default of zero encryption.

      I'm sure Windows XP also has encryption turned on by default for its remote desktop. You just have to manually up it from 56 bit to 128, as long as both PC's can handle it.

    6. Re:Gee... by MrWa · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, they're not going to be making money on the hardware any time in the near future. Therefore, people buying the X-box then not buying any games is pretty devestating.

      The reason it may help Microsoft is in quality and number of games created for the XBox. Which will then fuel more platform sales and games bought. People always say that game platforms wars are won or lost through the games, right? If the better games are created for the Xbox - and consquently, the XBox2 - then it will be more of a success in terms of platforms sold and games sold. Which then helps Microsoft.

    7. Re:Gee... by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 2000 server ships with a strong encryption library including SSL and filesystem encryption. It also has terminal server which does remote access securely. Windows XP also comes with a VPN client. I'm sorry, what version of Windows have you 'yet to see' ship with encryption?

    8. Re:Gee... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't think that M$ could do this - this'd mean you cannot play old games on X-Box 2.

      Think again. The XB2 encryption key wouldn't be "in place of" the XB1 key, it would be "in addition to" the XB1 key. The XBox2 would 1)check if it's an XB1 or XB2 game, then 2) use the appropriate key. These are computers. We can do things like that with computers.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:Gee... by filmcritic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BZZZT! It doesn't matter where they lose money because they have LOTS to lose. As a matter of fact, the Xbox is already ahead of the GameCube. Check out this link on IGN for the straight scoop. What do they care if they're still losing cash only after 1 year on the market and have taken over 2nd place? Game Informer magazine printed a strong rumor that 3rd party developers are pulling GameCube projects left and right because they don't sell. Very reminicent of the N64.

      It's pretty obvious that the majority of the crowd here are nothing but Linux fanboys blind to reality. They pretend to be great legal minds, wonderful security experts and fantastic coders all because of a niche OS. The real world is quite different than the one portrayed by Stallhead and that bunch of leftover hippies.

      It's time to wake up and realize Microsoft and the DMCA are not the antichrist, and no one cares if Microsoft is losing money on each Xbox sold. That is a meaningless statement to the people who live in the real world. We (those who live in the real world) enjoy playing games on every console, the manufacturer does not matter one bit. Just keep the narrow pinpoint focus and watch where it takes you - right into a pit. And before anyone starts calling me a Microsoft stooge or something like that, I own all 3 consoles and enjoy each one because I don't care who makes them.

    10. Re:Gee... by rworne · · Score: 2

      Considering the stellar job Microsoft has done in the past in regard to security, I think they might just have a chance.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    11. Re:Gee... by EvanED · · Score: 2

      From comments other /.ers have made, the XBox uses the RSA algorithm. (The site's down so I can't verify.) I'm not quite sure how you'd mess that up...

      Unless they found a way to mess it up, cracking the key is going to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

    12. Re:Gee... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2
      I'm sorry, what version of Windows have you 'yet to see' ship with encryption?

      The affordable one. According to Microsoft itself, the cheapest version os Windows 2k Server (5 licenses) is 999 bucks and Windows XP Professional would be $299 or $199 if you upgrade from Windows XP Home edition. Though the VPN might be far more useful then simple terminal service encryption, but I honestly don't know because I barely understand what VPNs are. (much to my embarresment...) And no, the 10 cent versions of Windows on shiny CDs labeled "Nashua - 700mb multispeed" do not count as a viable alternative. :)

    13. Re:Gee... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wrong, every xbox sold is another number than can add to their tally. The more than can say they have sold, the better their system looks to game developers. Whether or not any of these xbox owners actually buy any games or just hack it is irrelevant.

      The more games and developers working on the xbox the better it will look in the market place. period.

      -v

    14. Re:Gee... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2

      No, if XBox 2 games were signed with a different key, it would simply mean that XBox 2 would have to know both the new public key and the old public key if it was to play XBox 1 games.

    15. Re:Gee... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      > People act like microsoft is the bad guys in this
      > situation, but why don't they just buy a liscence
      > to make Linux on XBox?

      Got a billion dollars to donate to the cause? I'd guess Microsoft would want at least that much for such a license.

      > It seems the LinuXbox developers would be the
      > bad guys for developing software on a platform
      > you are susposed to pay royalies on for.

      "Supposed" by who? If I own the bloody box I can damn well do anything I please with it, including prying out chips, soldering in different ones, and running any software I want (I don't own an XBox, of course).

      > Of course, this stirs of lots of things, and
      > just because the platform isn't a free platform
      > where anything can be developed on for free,
      > doesn't make it right to develop for it
      > anyways.

      Nonsense. They can develop for whatever they please.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    16. Re:Gee... by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      Well, the two consoles really don't aim for the same audience. Even though Nintendo desperately wants out of the "kids" category (with such games as Eternal Darkness and the Resident Evil exclusive deal), that's still its main target audience. Similarly, the Xbox has very few "kids" games, and definitely aims more towards the teen/young adult market. Sony remains way ahead in both markets - considering that 10-year olds seem to all be playing GTA3...

      Personally, I don't have a favorite. I own an Xbox and a PS2, and I might get a GC once Zelda comes out. I had the chance to try it out at E3: it looks amazing, and plays well too. But I have to say that, so far, the GC's lineup has been the least impressive. I don't really like the controller either, it's too cramped for my big hands. I love the little discs, though!

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    17. Re:Gee... by Trogre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Therefore, people buying the X-box then not buying any games is pretty devestating.

      Not really. Even given that MS is selling the unit for less than it costs them to make it, you're still giving them money.

      Say it costs MS $250 to produce an XBox. They then sell it for $200. If you buy it, MS loses $50. If you *don't* buy it, MS loses $250.

      If you don't like MS, it would be much more devastating if you just didn't bother with the XBox and instead invested in a PS2 or GameCube.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    18. Re:Gee... by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      My big problem is the Z "trigger", which is one of the most ill-placed buttons ever conceived. I've played it quite enough, but it does feel too small for me (not to mention too light). I do have pretty big hands, though I would not qualify them as "huge." It is, however, a matter of personal taste. Personally I'm fine with the original Xbox controller, but I know that most people tend to think it's too big (until they've actually played with it for a while, then they think it's very comfortable...)

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    19. Re:Gee... by nathanm · · Score: 2
      5. There are tons of other worthwhile distributed computing projects to do out there - Folding@Home, SETI@Home, Mersenne Prime Search etc.
      That's hilarious! I can't believe you used worthwhile & SETI in the same sentence.
    20. Re:Gee... by avdp · · Score: 2

      Well, that assumes that MS made a billion worth of XBox ahead of time or something. I am sure they're more or less made as needed with as little inventory sitting on the factory floor. You know, basic "Supply Chain Management". Of course several companies got hit pretty hard by f*cking this up pretty badly (i.e. Palm)...

    21. Re:Gee... by sbaker · · Score: 2

      That's bogus.

      > Say it costs MS $250 to produce an XBox. They then sell it for $200.
      > If you buy it, MS loses $50. If you *don't* buy it, MS loses $250.

      Stoopid. That presumes that they made a bazillion X boxen and then
      won't ever make any more...so if I don't buy it, they toss it into
      the nearest dumpster. No way!

      If you buy it, they lose $50 - if you don't buy it, they sell it to
      someone else - and make one fewer next time around...they lose *nothing*.

      The real deal is the question of how game makers pay M$. Generally,
      they'll be paying a per-game-sold royalty. M$ rely on the royalties
      from the games you buy to cover the $50 (or whatever it is) that they
      lost on the console sale.

      So - buy an X-box and buy no games at all - M$ loses.

      Buy an X-box and buy (say) 10 games - M$ breaks even.

      You could argue that games won't be made for the X-box *at all*
      unless a certain number of them have been sold - and that's certainly
      true. It's not worth the game developers making games if nobody's
      going to buy them - but X-box is past that threshold. There are
      plenty of owners out there buying games to guarantee half a dozen
      new games every month.

      Would it be more devastating to buy a Game Cube? Well, only if
      you are going to buy enough games for it for Nintendo to turn a
      profit.

      I've heard that the GameCube sells at a break-even price - or perhaps
      a small profit - .

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    22. Re:Gee... by salimma · · Score: 2

      Did not want to get flamed by thousands of sci-fi fans out there :p

      I personally run Folding@Home myself but I know some people who actually refused to run it because 'the result would be used by greedy pharmaceutical companies' (?!) - and stick to SETI@Home.

      Which reminds me - S@H *is* actually worthwhile for me. Sold close to 500 units for about 40 bucks, heh.

      I would classify distributed computing projects in three categories, based on certainty:
      - 100% certainty of finding a result: projects like Folding@Home

      - low certainty of finding a result: projects like Mersenne Prime Search, Distributed.net encryption cracking etc. ; yes, there definitely are solutions - no, chances are you won't find any yourself

      - nil-to-some-unknown-low-percentage certainty: projects like SETI@Home. lots of reasons: not enough antenna time, looking at wrong place (frequency-wise and orientation-wise), failure to anticipate mode of signal, etc.

      And in any case, SETI@Home was very useful as a floating-point CPU benchmarker :p

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    23. Re:Gee... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2
      Why can't Linux act as XB1 game? Then it'd just skip XB2 key.

      XBox-Linux devs can't encrypt it like an XB1 game because we don't have the current XBox encryption key, and by the time we brute-force the 2048-bit solution, XBox2 will be out and it'd likely have a NEW key.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  12. Some thoughts by Urthpaw · · Score: 2

    Apparently, this was suggested last may on the Xbox-linux mailing list.

  13. Hmmm... by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe with enough encouragement from a topless HAlle Berry, Stanley Jobson would be able to crack that 2048-bit encryption with a multi-headed worm!

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  14. Xbox client by BorgDrone · · Score: 4, Funny

    All we need now is an xbox version of this distributed computing client. I'd love to see the xbox key cracked by a modchipped xbox.

    1. Re:Xbox client by Alsee · · Score: 2

      How many XBoxes would it take to crack the XBox key? :)

      Three.

      One to say it can't be done.

      One to crack the key.

      And one to file the lawsuit.

      Tomorrow on slashdot: An Xbox, a Playstaion, and a Gamecube walk into a bar...

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. I don't get it by xintegerx · · Score: 2, Funny

    If there's a computing project to distribe XBox's private key, then is it really private?

    In either case, you don't need the original key. Just get a good locksmithing set. I've never heard of a lock that big though.

    All kidding aside however, I've seen a photo of an XBox with the cover off (don't arrest me.) It wasn't gruesome, but it is possible to get inside. What's this hoopla ;x

  16. That's not valid C! by Dthoma · · Score: 2, Funny

    [drew@localhost drew]$ cat > bitch.c

    #include "duplicate_story.h"
    #define DUPE

    ...

    #ifdef DUPE
    # include "standard_rant.h"
    bitch();
    #endif /* DUPE */

    [drew@localhost drew]$ gcc -ansi --pedantic -Wall bitch.c
    bitch.c:1:29: duplicate_story.h: No such file or directory
    bitch.c:4: parse error before '...' token
    bitch.c.7:27: standard_rant.h: No such file or directory

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  17. How is this thing done anyhow? by Sesse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The question is -- would one really need to crack that key to fool the Xbox? I mean, reading all the data on the disc would be way too slow, so it could only check a part of it. Would it be possible to re-use some already signed code from an existing game? What kind of code is signed, really? (All of it, just not the data?) And of course, how many buffer overflows are there in the signature verification code? =)

    /* Steinar */

    --
    (This comment is of course GPLed.)
    1. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by exhilaration · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Would it be possible to re-use some already signed code from an existing game?

      You'd run into copyright infringement issues - the signed code would be property of the copyright owner, and redistributing it would almost definitely be illegal. No need to take chances; I'm sure Microsoft's IP lawyers are looking for any excuse they can to take this project down.

    2. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by Sesse · · Score: 2

      And cracking their signing key and forging their electronic signatures would not? :-) (Probably depends a bit on the country, though -- some of us are lucky enough to live in countries that are DMCA-less for now. :-) )

      /* Steinar */

      --
      (This comment is of course GPLed.)
    3. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by greenrom · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's how it works. Not all the data on the DVDs have signatures. Only executable code. Basically, there's a 256 byte field in the program header of executables that contain the signature. The kernel is designed so that when a program is loaded into memory, the signature is verified before control is passed to the application. If the kernel determines the executable doesn't have a valid signature, it won't allow the program to execute.

      It's not possible to re-use a signature because any change in the code will change the signature. That's the whole point of a signature. Mod chips get around this by replacing the kernel (compressed in the bios) with a patched version of the kernel that skips the signature check. If we knew Microsoft's private key, we could sign our own software. This would allow people to install linux (or pirate games) without using a mod chip.

      It might be possible to exploit a bug in the kernel or third party software that would allow us to transfer program control to our unsigned code, but nobody's found one yet. Given Microsoft's track record, I'm sure such a bug exists and will be found soon. With $100,000 up for grabs, there's a heck of a lot of people looking for it.

    4. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by EvanED · · Score: 2

      The best prescedent we have on that is the DeCSS case, at least that I know of. The other way would be "more illegal" though, because you'd be breaking conventional copyright redistribution laws in addition to the DMCA provisions.

    5. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You don't have to redistribute it; Just require people to use their own signed code and burn their own CD/DVD/whatever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2
      You'd run into copyright infringement issues - the signed code would be property of the copyright owner, and redistributing it would almost definitely be illegal

      I don't think so. First of all, I don't think a checksum (that's what is signed) meets the requirements for copyrightability. Second, even if it does, fair use allows copying when it is necessary for compatibility. Check out Sega vs. Activision (I think it was Activision...).

    7. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by Sesse · · Score: 2

      If you can generate a program with a given cryptographic hash, I think you've done far much more interesting stuff than breaking the Xbox security. ;-) Those algorithms are designed for it to be infeasible to to exactly that. :-) My original proposal was more to use already-signed programs to do what you want, not generate other programs that happened to have the same checksum.

      /* Steinar */

      --
      (This comment is of course GPLed.)
    8. Re:How is this thing done anyhow? by eples · · Score: 2

      You'd run into copyright infringement issues - the signed code would be property of the copyright owner, and redistributing it would almost definitely be illegal.

      What about something along the lines of Sega v. Accolade ? Game company desires to publish software for the XBox without Microsoft involved in any way. Accolade was allowed to use copyrighted code so that their games would work on Sega's hardware - the rest of the code in the game was entirely new and property of Accolade. Accolade won. Is signed code any different? (I ask because I do not know)

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
  18. Re:sounds illegal to me by certron · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Isn't reverse engineering a company's hardware/cracking encryption a violation of the DMCA? I am not saying I support the DMCA but it would be a shame if unsuspecting people jumped on this project and had the FBI raid their house and throw them in jail."

    Ah, here we go... US Code, Title 17 (copyrights), Section 1201 (part of the DMCA)

    (reads it. reads it again.)

    OK, I don't feel so smart anymore... But, the first part (a-1-A) of the section says:

    "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."(This should be in effect now, since it was signed into law by Clinton in 1998)

    but later in (f-1):

    "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."

    Go read the whole thing (well, maybe it isn't recommended) but this *should* be legal... or... not. There is always the saying that if you cannot exercise a right, you don't have it. That was the tactic used with DVDs, even though you were allowed to make fair use copies, the use of CSS and Macrovision did not allow it to happen as easily. (No, I am not a lawyer.)

    --

    fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
    eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. 64Bits by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    This is a usefull task for 64Bit machines....
    Each key check should take about half the time, because SFAIK the main overhead is the 32bit -> 2048Bit math conversion.

    Or am I talking out of my ass.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:64Bits by EvanED · · Score: 2

      The main overhead appears to me to be that on averge you'd test 1.6x10^616 keys (2^2047) before finding a hit, assuming there is only one key. Even at a trillion keys/second that would take some 586 times the age of the universe to complete.

    2. Re:64Bits by oliverthered · · Score: 2

      And each key is tested how? using 2048 bit math,
      And how pray tell do you do that on a 32Bit processor, would it possibly be about twice as fast if you could use chunks of 64/128bit instead of 32/64 bit. hmm.........

      the main overhead is the 32bit -> 2048 bit maths for each check 64bit ->2048 bit should have about half the work load and be able to check the whole keyspace a lot! quicker.

      So am i still talking out of my ass?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:64Bits by EvanED · · Score: 2

      My point is that, while it would speed up checking by a factor of two, that would still not help a while as the computations are already prohibitively large.

      (BTW: I'm also not saying that it'll be brute forced... that would be insane and literally impossible, even if computers were a trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion- (well, you get the idea; put another 40 or so "trillions" in there) times faster than those today.)

  21. lol by LHN · · Score: 2

    The Neo Project cant even handle the slashdot effect, how are they going to crack a 2048 bit private key. Good luck fellas.

  22. It's beyond hopeless... by acidblood · · Score: 2

    or otherwise does anyone think RSA would offer $200,000 to anyone able to crack a 2048-bit RSA key generated by them (exactly the same kind of key)?

    --

    Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/

  23. Only 2048 bits... by Mulletproof · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't forget, there is always a number of people with more than enough time on their hands to pull this crap off... never underestimate the power of the bored stiff.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Only 2048 bits... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Beowulf cluster of Vic-20

      I used to have one of those. It doesn't even have enough ram to hold 14 copies of the key :)

      Err, I mean I had a Vic-20, not a Beowolf cluster of them hehe!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  24. calling all quantum computers by sydlexic · · Score: 5, Funny

    nothing drives innovation like porn and piracy. bring on the flames.

  25. It's your hardware, enhance it as you like by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cracking keys is a very hands-off approach to improving your Xbox or any other device. You bought the hardware, it's yours, so enhance it to your heart's content by installing a hardware mod that makes it general purpose, or get it done for you by a supplier. Voiding the warranty is no issue if you value the extended specification.

    It's no different in concept to any other kind of DIY improvements that you carry out at home --- absolutely everything that you buy has patents, trademarks, or other legal constraints, but in no other industry do they see fit to limit what you can do with items that you have purchased, simply because they can. It's your equipment, do with it what you wish. (If you were merely leasing the hardware then it would cost much less and they might have a case, but here they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, take your money for an outright purchase and still lay claim to controlling your possessions. That's simply not right.)

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  26. "There's still hope" by po8 · · Score: 2

    What cracks me up about this dupe is that in the space of a few hours we've gone from "There's still hope: distributed computing can factor the public key" to "Only 2048 bits *cough*. Yeah, that's gonna work."

    Pretty impressive flip, especially considering...wait for it...these comments were both in articles posted by CmdrTaco. Yes, our beloved Cmdr actually duped himself!

    Ah Slashdot: there's still hope.

  27. Sigh... by FosterSJC · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK. First, obviously this story is a duplicate... but don't mod me redundant just yet. The story is still on the front page, too. In any case, the same questions get asked here and are not being answered to the extent they were in the other discussion. So here:

    1. Could anyone of you tell how much time/processnig power this will need in comparisson to things like the RSA challenge?
    Thank you.

    Answer: Somewhat more complicated.

    2. Doesn't this violate that DMCA thingy?

    Answer: RE: DMCA Anyone?

    3. How is this done anyhow?

    Answer: RE: Buffer Overflow...

    I found these comments to be most helpful in the other discussion... certainly surpassing what I've seen here. Who can blame them: who wants to keep posting the same stuff over and over again, even if it is smart writing? Anyway, sorry for the whoring. I'll stop now.

  28. Wouldn't it be easier... by Andy_R · · Score: 2

    ...to simply look for a bug of weakness in the key verification software that exists in every xbox?

    The object code for this must be readable somehow, and knowing microsoft it probably has some vulnerability, such as taking a few extra clock cycles to reject a key if it's partially correct, increasing as you get closer to the key.

    Oh, btw, the legality of reverse engineering software for compatibility purposes is one of the very few rights that are actually enshrined in British law, so those of us who live in this jusridiction can find they key without falling foul of the law.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  29. RSA != RC5 by jpatokal · · Score: 5, Informative
    First up, since many posters seem to be rather confused, RC5 is a symmetric algorithm while RSA is asymmetric, which are very different beasts. Asymmetric keys need about 10 bits more length to double their security, compared to only one for symmetric keys. Cracking a 2048-bit asymmetric key isn't thus quite as difficult as you might think.

    Which, however, does not mean it's easy. RSA has been running the RSA Challenge for a few years now, the lowest prize being $10,000 for a 576-bit key and up to a whopping $200,000 for a 2048-bit key -- like the one in the Xbox. There have been no takers yet, and the largest RSA key cracked to date remains 512 bits. RSA's own estimate is that you would need 320 million 520 MHz Pentium-class machines to crack a 1024-bit key in one year, and we're talking 2^100 times that for a 2048-bit key!

    Cheers,
    -j.

  30. Unlikely but an interesting idea... by sterno · · Score: 2

    This is the first time that I've seen a distributed cracking project that actually tackles an interesting problem with practical real-world implications. All the RSA cracking contests are neat and all, but they don't really have a lot of practical impact on the world. This, if it succeeds would be huge.

    Having said that though, that key is enormous, and the odds that they find this key before it becomes irrelevant are extrordinarily slim. Still, it would be interesting to see the nature of the shit that hit the fan if they did indeed get the key.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Unlikely but an interesting idea... by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      Arrr??

      It is VERY shortsighted if you try to claim that cracking the X-BOX encryption is the most "interesting problem with practical real-world implications." This is far from it. If anyone can crack the RSA encryption, the whole basis of the internet and business would collapse. Look at E-commerce or Online banking. Look at how much damage you can do if you are able to crack any encryption in any reasonable amount of time. Look at the CIA/FBI/Milnet infrascructure. There would be nothing that can be held "secure" on the internet.

      So to say that XBOX is the most practical impact on the world is very shortsighted

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  31. I've Got a Better Idea by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    How about we apply for a national foundation of the arts grant to purchase 10,000 XBoxes which will then be welded together into a giant Tux the Penguin sculpture and put on permanent display in Redmond, WA? A completely legal way to poke Billy Borg in the eye, if in fact Microsoft does sell the XBox at a loss...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  32. How long by akruppa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many comments here assume that the time to factor a composite integer N is proprotional to N, which is, happily, quite incorrect. Even by trial division, you only have to test prime divisors <=sqrt(N), and there are many far more efficient factoring methods.

    RSA Security Inc. has quite informative FAQs on this subject, for example The RSA Factoring Challenge FAQ or What are the best factoring methods in use today?

    A good paper, "A Survey of Modern Integer Factorization Algorithms" by P.L.Montgomery, can be found at Crypto World. It is slightly math-inclined but definitvely a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the topic.

    Now for the bad news: 2048 bits can't be done today. Even GNFS, the best algo in town, has only managed to factor a 512 bits RSA key (and a 158 decimal digit number, with a 576 bits RSA coming soon, though) but 2048 bits will be million times harder. Right now there's no way to factor that, if Microsoft has chosen the primes for the key even remotely securely. I'm sorry to say that but with present technology, this project is a waste of time.

    Alex

    --
    Heisenberg may have been here
  33. Re:sounds illegal to me by LarsG · · Score: 2

    Isn't reverse engineering a company's hardware/cracking encryption a violation of the DMCA?

    The DMCA does contain an exemption for reverse engineering. It has, however, never been interpreted by a court of law yet.

    Also, the exemption only allows you to circumvent a TPM in order to do RE. Once you make an interoperable program and distribute it you are likely distributing a curcumvention device - which is illegal.

    So, the DMCA allows RE but you're screwed if you use the information you figured out to make and distribute interoperable software/hardware.

    Advocating illegal activity is pretty unprofessional.

    First of all, it is unclear whether it is illegal or not. Secondly, ever heard of public disobedience?

    --
    If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
  34. Weird Idea by flamingdog · · Score: 2

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say MS may just have anticipated this move. Therefore, they would assume it would be done by ordered brute force. So by that logic, they would pick (or at least influence the random generation of) a key that was much later in any type of order. So, finally, to cut back on the number of years this project would take to complete...
    Work backwards!

    --

    ---------------------------
  35. Who the hell does that? by bogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Therefore, people buying the X-box then not buying any games is pretty devestating."

    Wealthy idiots who hate Microsoft? I'd venture the amount of people who 1) really want to run linux on Xbox and 2) Are never going to buy game for it, is on the order of .001 percent. Somehow I don't think MS will be hurt by the 10-20 people who buy Xbox's but never buy any games for them. Let's not be silly in estimating how many people would actually consider doing this, its just not realistic. Although I guess its possible Larry Ellison has a stack of them in his closet out of spite.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  36. What about plain old industrial espionage? by Glytch · · Score: 2

    Physically break in and steal the key, or just bribe someone. It would be a hell of a lot easier. Not that I would ever advocate anything illegal, of course.

  37. not quite by RelliK · · Score: 5, Informative

    RSA encryption works like this:

    You pick two large primes, p and q; multiply them together to get N.
    Then, arbitrarily pick an encryption key e (1 < e < N) and calculate the corresponding decryption key d (1 < d < N, d != e).
    Make the set {e, N} public but keep d private.

    Now, to encrypt a message M you calculate cyphertext C as follows:
    C = M ^ e (mod N)

    To decrypt, you calculate M' = C ^ d (mod N). The claim is, of course, that M' == M. (Notice that M' = (M ^ e) ^ d (mod N) = (M ^ d) ^ e (mod N), so it's really irrelevant which of {e,d} you make public.)

    Anyway, from the public key, you know N and e and you want to figure out d. To do that you need to factor N into p and q (see above), then you can make an easy calculation to get d. Since p and q are primes, those are the only factors of N (other than 1 and N). Further, since we are talking about 2048 bit encryption (N >= 2^2048), the factors p and q can be up to 1024 bits long (2^1024). To brute-force the private key you need to go through 2^1024 (*) possible factors of N until you find one that works.

    Now, suppose we have a computer that can check the divisibility of N 1000 times per second. It will need 10 ^ 298 years to go through all possible combinations (though of course it can get lucky and pick the right factor early on). If we have 1,000,000 of these computers, we'll still need 10 ^ 292 years, so don't hold your breath...

    (*) It's actually less than 2^2048 because you only need to consider prime numbers, but it's still staggeringly large. Also, given a number x, it's not so easy to tell if it's prime (unless it's even). You need to use an algorithm to determine that, which takes time.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:not quite by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Why isn't a list of known primes to make things much easier in the search for the private key?

      Unfortunately, this doesn't work simply because N is too large. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are 2^300 primes between 1 and 2^1024 (*). To make the lookup table you suggest we would need to store all of them. That is 2^300 numbers that are 1024 bits (= 128 bytes) each. That's 2.37 * 10^80 terabytes. There is not enough storage capacity in the world to accomodate that.

      Some day we will have large enough hard drives to store that much data. But when that day comes, we'll need to break much larger keys.

      (*) In general, there is an infinite amount of primes in the set of all integers (between 1 and infinity).

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    2. Re:not quite by bmajik · · Score: 2

      great information.

      one optimization - there are numerous projects that are calculating all known prime numbers. It should be a matter of a few moments to see if any of these projects has reached the 1024bit mark, in other words, has any project found all known primes which can be represented in 1024 bits or less.

      i see that http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/ftp/all.txt

      lists primes in the form of
      2^13466917-1

      which is clearly larger than a 2048 bit number... so if "all the gaps" have been filled in than the entire set of numbers for p and q are known...

      also, tehcnically the prime could be as large as 2047 bits. i realize thatn to check for primality, you only need to check factores up to the square root of the number, but the "other factor" (and we want both of them) is guaranteed to be larger than 1024 bits (unless the key is a perfect square of primes).

      so anyway, if theres a project that lists all primes up to 1024bits or 2048bits in length, that is the "input" to the problem - the products of all such pairs of primes is the brute force space, not all possible 2048 bit numbers.

      so actually, if you take the "forward" approach, you can choose p and q from the prime database, see if they multiply to N, and if so, you've got d. Distributing "the list" into pq product pairs for calculation is massively distributable, and it seems like knowing some things about N gives you some additional advantages in terms of products you dont need to calculate.

      that said, i think the resultant number of actual p's and qs there are is an important number to actually spell out.

      the prime number theorem says that this should be roughly x / log(x-1)

      turns out that this grows pretty fast. for 2^128, the numberspace is about 3.4E38, while the number of primes is 8E36. Also, the ratio of integerspace:primespace grows roughly linearly with 2^n at about .301 from n=1..n=128.

      when you move up to a 512 bit integerspace, the ratio of integers to primes has increased to about 154:1.

      excel gives up with 1024bit numbers, but 1023 is showing about a 308:1 ratio. so assume that for a 2048 bit space, there will be a 1:600 ratio of primes to non primes.

      not that dividing such a huge space by 600 is significant in terms of space size, but it does make it a bit nicer when approaching it from the brute force aspect. you either finish 600 times faster or with 600 times less machines :)

      incidentally, sqrt(2^1024) is about 153 digits long :)

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  38. Piggyback anyone? by WetCat · · Score: 2

    Why crack encrypted keys?
    Why not to write an interesting game,
    like robot battle, that include, for example
    python virtual machine as robots AI?
    Then sign that game in Microsoft.
    Then port linux to that Python virtual machine.
    It's perfectly legal and OK.

  39. Poor legal advice by werdna · · Score: 2

    While it sounds good in principle, it is almost certainly wrong. Subject to issues of IP exhaustion, mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom. The cases simply won't bear out the general proposition suggested here.

    On the other hand, it would be quite interesting to imagine how Microsoft would try to stop someone who had discovered the key by legitimate means -- say brute-force efforts -- to produce one's own software to run on the machine. I doubt DMCA would provide Microsoft adequate relief against such an approach -- this key does not protect unlicensed content from copying, but rather permits content to run on a machine. As such, it might not be a measure that ''effectively controls access to a work'' within the meaning of the DMCA, because it may not control access to a copyrighted work per se.

    1. Re:Poor legal advice by EvanED · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but I believe the DMCA would be the *only* recourse MS would have, provided they don't ship a license or something with the actual X-Box (which I doubt even MS would do). And I doubt that general use of the key to run, e.g. Linux, would be held in violation. Or at least I like to thing that it wouldn't.

    2. Re:Poor legal advice by Morgaine · · Score: 2

      You write: mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom

      We do not own a copy of an Xbox, we own an actual Xbox, an individual object in its own right. We were sold that individual object, not licensed the rights to use a mere copy. Furthermore, we are not creating derivative works from the object which we possess and own, and in particular we are not cloning a new unit and hence not reducing the manufacturer's sales in any way. Instead we are enhancing our own single individual unit, and note that after modification, our original unmodified unit no longer exists, so using language appropriate to non-destructive duplication of electronic data is entirely inappropriate here.

      Poor legal advice

      It's not legal advice, it's commonsense advice. When the law is out of step with commonsense, it no longer fulfils its purpose of serving the people and gets widely ignored, and that's what we're seeing already. It'll probably get worse too, if the legal and political professions don't extract their collective heads from out of the sand and realize that the best way of serving big business is by serving the consumer from which all the profits of big business are derived. The current strategy of kicking the consumer is so shortsighted that it's scary that people can be so blind and stupid.

      --
      "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  40. Here's an algorythm for factorizing it by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 2

    1.) you're going to test each prime between 2 and the square root of the 2048-bit "target"
    2.) Convert the target and the prime to be tested into double-precision floating points and devide them. This proves that any prime that doesn't match the first 52 bits of the result can't multiply by the prime being tested to get the "target". That narrows it down a heck of a lot. Find the primes that can match using some sort of efficient indexing algorythm.
    3.) If necessary, use a quad-precision floating-point operation to narrow it doen even more
    4.) Of the possible matches remaining, multiply the middle one by the prime being tested. If the result is too high, you eliminate all the primes above that. Lather, rinse, and repeat until you either find the match or prove that none of them will match. This will take log(N)/log(2) iterations, where N is the number of primes you had left after narrowing it down with the floating point operations. Since N is limited to around 2^20, it will take 20 iterations or less.
    5.) Repeat procedure with the next prime.

    If this is implemented properly, it might take only a few hundred processor cycles to test each prime. That means you could test 10^8 primes per second on a 2ghz athlon.

  41. Getting the key through other methods by LS · · Score: 2

    Excuse me if I sound ignorant, but couldn't the memory be read out using some hardware probe while the XBox has the key in memory? And if the memory is encrypted, couldn't the hardware be modified in some fashion to allow debugging starting right from boot-up, so the hacker can read the key from memory using software techniques? Obviously someone out there understands the XBox architecture pretty well, or else there wouldn't be mod-chips...

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Getting the key through other methods by ssimpson · · Score: 2

      I think we know how well a distributed attack can work against RSA and DH (these things have been tried in the past). We can break up to (about) 768-bit keys but would struggle to get near 1,024 bits. 2,048-bits is a complete non started.

      (And yes, this is using the Public key to "narrow the search". Your 150 odd systems will still be pissing in the wind, unfortunately....).

      --
      "Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
    2. Re:Getting the key through other methods by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      No. Think about this: you can check my PGP signature on your computer, without ever having my private key in your computer's memory.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  42. Re:If they find the key... by minaguib · · Score: 2, Informative

    No they can't. Each CD you pop in has to be signed by the private key (that only MS knows). The public key built-into every xbox is used to verify weather the CD should run or not. Which means there's only 1 public key, and only 1 private key. All CDs are signed by the same private key, and all xboxes are fitted with the same public key.

  43. Never happen by TerryAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like they smartened up after DVDs lame 40 bit key was cracked.

    If the encryption on the xbox is not broken (and it might be...) you will NEVER crack a 2048 bit key. If it took d.net 4 years to do a 64 bit key I argue that it will take 2^(2048/64) or 4 BILLION times as long to do the 2048 bit key.

    Find another path, this one won't work.

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  44. Re:Why brute force? by Styx · · Score: 2

    If MS really used "proper" RSA, noone has yet found an algorithm that is better than brute force.

    --
    /Styx
  45. Re:sounds illegal to me by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 2

    Although that is true, the Berne Convention and other pre-existing arrangements may make the DMCA enforceable in other countries. Something at least worthy of concern.

  46. Re:sounds illegal to me by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not Slander, it's Libel becuase the poster wrote it rather than spoke it in open forums.

  47. Re:sounds illegal to me by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 2

    Uh... MLK, jr. is Dead. Can't arrest the dead, dude. (So when I die, expect me to commit many crimes! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) ;)

  48. Two-step key solution... by jvl001 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Two-step key solution:
    1. Break into Bill G.'s office.
    2. Copy key from Post-It note on corner of monitor.

    --
    /. is to journalism as graffiti is to a bathroom wall
  49. Lets try a little calculation... by markbthomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume we want to find the key in about one year.

    The keyspace is 2^2048. This means that to find it on average in one year, we need to search (2^2048)/2 keys.

    There are 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 31536000 seconds in a year. A current machine, say 2 GHz, will not be able to check keys any faster than 2 billion per second (in practice the number would be much lower than this, but it cannot be any higher, ignoring chips which can parallelise operations). This means we can check 63072000000000000 keys per machine per second.

    This means we need:

    ( (2048^2)/2 divided by 63072000000000000 ) machines to participate.

    That's:
    256191385014832313076443403480704210746 79812491847 0034501286984934080\
    5360450587494704242882065172 6173015536181603483336 1032784430099655323\
    2423908579595405498527942459 9902489291405217648393 6232454940842516362\
    7883076229723065910368797710 4019484459166088424059 6873702316740293441\
    5552151969860441431944756023 7127342032430926831573 9828884343009334529\
    2378237199258154020627668325 9628831104499868523479 9854643717630057264\
    7428213934658612248791246642 4010974519290044145762 9590988748658836010\
    6319531783273982390734283246 1834647652719112497108 8586363327032331220\
    1716731957297646596715233805 68862609019439636890

    That's a lot of machines. In fact, every person in the world would need to have:
    4088182880916853059137581913995608598938002 0574938 1512491823325275367\
    0039983761093737657581366182 3437132028369300928737 2136090488973662885\
    0749520857823194202487813723 5281529166119647272954 3623272112620364581\
    9171026696185476725881661520 6188703489047492973236 7903825810597884676\
    0087066526446068063036669029 6494498088117693882712 8484532375726579806\
    8929812355659309066834995984 8375737098966810233408 2736619960338101994\
    5191141043929531602040535969 8321364177283871960956 9923672820142531423\
    1154135179174732484135445198 3247750938845967420404 6551928328834053889\
    0325273138153871592525085498 7565463644
    machines.

    Good luck :)

    1. Re:Lets try a little calculation... by zoid.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean that everybody doens't have:
      4088182880916853059137581913995608598938002 0574938 1512491823325275367\
      0039983761093737657581366182 3437132028369300928737 2136090488973662885\
      0749520857823194202487813723 5281529166119647272954 3623272112620364581\
      9171026696185476725881661520 6188703489047492973236 7903825810597884676\
      0087066526446068063036669029 6494498088117693882712 8484532375726579806\
      8929812355659309066834995984 8375737098966810233408 2736619960338101994\
      5191141043929531602040535969 8321364177283871960956 9923672820142531423\
      1154135179174732484135445198 3247750938845967420404 6551928328834053889\
      0325273138153871592525085498 7565463644 machines?
      I have this many in my garage beowolfed.

    2. Re:Lets try a little calculation... by CTho9305 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Assuming your garage can hold 40881828809168530591375819139956085989380020574938 1512491823325275367\
      0039983761093737657581366182 3437132028369300928737 2136090488973662885\
      0749520857823194202487813723 5281529166119647272954 3623272112620364581\
      9171026696185476725881661520 6188703489047492973236 7903825810597884676\
      0087066526446068063036669029 6494498088117693882712 8484532375726579806\
      8929812355659309066834995984 8375737098966810233408 2736619960338101994\
      5191141043929531602040535969 8321364177283871960956 9923672820142531423\
      1154135179174732484135445198 3247750938845967420404 6551928328834053889\
      0325273138153871592525085498 7565463644 machines, your garage alone, assuming each machine is a laptop (1 foot by 10.5 inches by .75 inches = .055 cu ft), is 22485005845042691825256700526975847294159011316215 98318705028289014518521991068601555711669751400289 04226156031155108054674849768935514586791223647180 27568113682975479404841041365806000124899279966194 12005200544064682902012199234913836340378691897612 11352802347104195828836571804788658954533743467016 79663071973948464731635492066649280664961889379113 96795612619986759247791660665540443174562837455051 40978185956096985512757416124238112229478340767502 97506129578526345802005107839228271347743485461028 66274494859078626301636528208122256035605808587296 389678900225984629375888797024316100500
      cu ft, or
      1527535236702389162673723920219749205081264399 3997 94854961724120329145966644337960324143415902552971 01026348539927449571224231277983755226968934762883 30131192099041893874203522455126277928716888646789 13471024749083929443537501958528496605970911808346 43237972731512049725281892376321009516853701515505 32213295993376636606761683794791710597279158733889 15625410752988437806384466996891670866835727072514 84706924425210063732923007056672984301764158218385 38559374507144193012960606842701365401974808359445 55991169536841535880632719814010901480209322876514 1988381062706528888227254663
      cubic miles.

      13600000000 light years for the observed universe: 186000 mps * 3600 sph = 669600000mph * 24hpd * 365.25dpy = 5869713600000 miles per light year.
      Thus, the farthest observed object is 79828104960000000000000 miles away.

      The volume of a sphere extending from the Sun to this object 13.6b light years away is approximately 20348268066000324435755076157440000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 cubic miles.

      Therefore, your garage is
      7506954556268743857175731713285829597245889967 6737 67278409202199204184199626823913221118601230384789 69615772672230618996386111621561776499129478319286 64756117518223656440512561382444347413642325197110 56738823839270223873000969599844183353687342203120 56527978054364910636301046261986873080375457073203 06038764208187242347396911934568567073598816809777 57333465244156873121011927106030406077422213778744 80769462038768245779346227201445299292993670038386 15124565775569113763528356856665926430955287721778 43293464
      times larger than the observable universe. Damn, you own a LOT of land :-)

    3. Re:Lets try a little calculation... by still_sick · · Score: 2

      Uhhh.... Can I borrow them?

      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    4. Re:Lets try a little calculation... by Eivind · · Score: 2
      The keyspace is not 2^2048, rather it's the product of all possible primes such that the product is a 2048 bit number. This is significantly less.

      If you want to factor a 2 (base 10) digit number you do not need to make 100 trial divisions, infact even with the trivial method of trial division you need only to check up until 10. (or sqrt(num))

      And there's methods much better than this, good enough that a 512-bit number has been factored.

      2048bit is still uncrackable though. With the current best methods for factoring you need something like 10 or 11 bits extra for doubling the workload, so a 2048 bit key should be around 2^140 times harder than the 512-bit key.

      All this assumes that no better way of factoring primes is found. Since there's been many improvements in this field in the past and there's no fundamental reason to think that the current version of the optimised number sieve is optimal I find it reasonable to expect that factoring will continue to improve.

      It would have to improve a lot to make this project feasible though.

  50. Buffer overrun by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

    Hey, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Why bother cracking a 2048-bit key when all you've got to do is find the right buffer overrun to exploit?

  51. The Code by sdjunky · · Score: 3, Funny

    Duh, Same as Bill's luggage... 12345

  52. Difficulty of breaking RSA. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    RSA is a public key algorithm and so there are faster attacks than brute force. The difficulty of breaking an n+1 bit key is not twice the difficulty of breaking an n bit key.

    The difficulty of breaking RSA keys depends on the assumptions you build into the model. Unlike DES cracking factoring does not neatly decompose with trivial parallelism. There are parallel algorithms but there is a tradeoff between the part you do on a loosely coupled parallel box and the part that requires a tightly coupled processor.

    The rough equation that is generally used is 512 bits RSA is roughly equivalent to a 56 bit symmetric cipher. 1024 bit RSA is roughly equivalent to a 76 to 80 bit symmetric cipher and 2048 bit RSA is roughly equivalent to a 112 to 128 bit symmetric cipher.

    This is on the basis that the breaks of 56 bit DES and 512 bit RSA came at arround the same time and used roughly equivalent amounts of processing. In fact there is a slight discontinuity since only half of the RSA calculation could be farmed out. The farming stage results in a heck of a big matrix that you have to invert which was done on a CM5 I seem to recall.

    Unlike the DES challenge there is no chance that you just 'get lucky' after a very small number of trials.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:Difficulty of breaking RSA. by cyberformer · · Score: 2
      Unlike the DES challenge there is no chance that you just 'get lucky' after a very small number of trials.


      Not strictly true. There's a 1 in 2^2048 chance that you'll 'get lucky' and guess the correct key. Next to no chance, I guess.

    2. Re:Difficulty of breaking RSA. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      Not strictly true. There's a 1 in 2^2048 chance that you'll 'get lucky' and guess the correct key. Next to no chance, I guess.

      Not true, if you were going to do it by brute force the factors are only half the length of the modulus so the chance of guessing it would be 1 in 2^1024.

      But that isn't how you do factoring, there are more efficient algorithms than brute force. The problem is you can't do 1/100th of the work and have a 1 in 100 change of getting the right number. It is more like you would have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting the right number, thats if you could adapt the method to give you part credit for part work at all..

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Difficulty of breaking RSA. by Xilman · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is on the basis that the breaks of 56 bit DES and 512 bit RSA came at arround the same time and used roughly equivalent amounts of processing. In fact there is a slight discontinuity since only half of the RSA calculation could be farmed out. The farming stage results in a heck of a big matrix that you have to invert which was done on a CM5 I seem to recall.

      Close, but no cigar. Much more than half of the RSA-155 factorization was farmed out. The General Number Field Sieve algorithm falls naturally into several phases. The first phase, polynomial selection, was run over several weeks on a number of computers and used 100 MIPS-years. The sieving phase, which accounted for about 90% of the computation, was spread over close to three hundred machines and took 15 weeks. The sieving used about 8400 MIPS-years.

      The final three stages were not widely distributed, though the last was run on four different machines concurrently. I don't have details of the filtering stage but, based on personal experience, I suspect it was done on one or two machines and used less than a week of cpu time.

      The linear algebra was actually done on the Cray C916 (not a CM5) at SARA in Amsterdam. It took 224 cpu-hours and 2Gb of RAM. The last stage, extracting a square root in an algebraic number field, was run on four 300MHz SGI processors and each job ran for around 40 hours.

      Incidentally, the matrix stage doesn't require a single supercomputer. A parallelized version is being developed which runs nicely on a Beowulf-type cluster. I'll be starting the matrix for a 506-bit GNFS factorization on just such a cluster later this week.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  53. Security? by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2

    This is Microsoft we're talking about here. You just *know* that the key to the Xbox is going to be "password" followed by 2000 or so spaces.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  54. The time it takes to find it. by phriedom · · Score: 2

    Your example may be the best data point that we have, but it is only one data point. If this project garners enough computing power to exhaust the keyspace in 7 years, the correct key is just as likely to be found in the first month as it is in the 50th month.

    I guess you would have to "get lucky" to break it in the first month, but there is no way to predict it.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  55. Oops by Temporal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Correction: Apparently (according to another poster), you need to add 10 bits to an RSA key to double the strength of the encryption. It would actually only take a little over 10^53 times the age of our universe to crack. So, never mind about having Duke Nukem Forever by then.

  56. So, what's the prize for the person who finds it.. by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    Ten years behind bars maybe??

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  57. Nope! by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    The entire point of public key encryption is that the recipient of an encoded message does not have the private key. In this case, the recipient is any one who has an Xbox. The key that is being sought is nowhere inside the Xbox itself. The Xbox carries the PUBLIC key which is of extremely limited utility in figuring out the PRIVATE key which only MS has. The project is attempting to (futilely IMHO) derive that private MS key from the public key which is already known...possibly from the scenario you envisioned.

  58. Re:sounds illegal to me by DarkZero · · Score: 2

    Advocating illegal activity is pretty unprofessional.

    Yeah, and so is Slashdot. You haven't been around here long, have you?

  59. This project will not last long by dstone · · Score: 2

    I see everyone talking about the computability of 2048 bit keys, legal issues, etc. But the project organizers tell us on the first page of their site that if they are "aproached by M$"[sic], they "will be ditching the Xbox project all together as we cannot afford the legal fees."

    Doesn't everyone agree that Microsoft would be foolish to not to "approach" them and just put this to sleep?

    1. Re:This project will not last long by messiertom · · Score: 2

      Doesn't everyone agree that Microsoft would be foolish to not to "approach" them and just put this to sleep?

      Not exactly. The way Microsoft has handled the xbox-linux project in the past, it looks like XBOX is really just a guinea pig for DRM. So I think that privately, they want this sort of thing to be going on.

  60. Beowulf? by richie2000 · · Score: 2
    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of X-boxes trying to crack the key... *ducks and runs*

    But wouldn't it be easier to just bribe one of the software developers? You know that if these guys actually by a freak accident were able to crack the key, Microsoft would just change it.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  61. This activity validates the DMCA by geekee · · Score: 2

    Everybody on slashdot whines about the DMCA, but activities such as this show that the DMCA is a practical law, even though it is unconstitutional. And people wonder why no one else has sympathy for slashdot causes. Regardless of the intent, these cause end up furthering illegal activity.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:This activity validates the DMCA by geekee · · Score: 2

      You're a real dumass. The primary reason to bypass the ms software is to run illegal games. Despite what yyou read in slashdot, the average person doesn't give a shit about running linux on an xbox. This before you insult me, asshole.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  62. Here are some clues. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Funny
    OK just to help you folk along here is a start.

    bit 0 of p is a 1
    bit 1023 of p is also a 1

    OK that is 2 bits out of 1024, thats 1/512th of the total

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  63. Re:They'll be done.. by Sesse · · Score: 2

    Well, at least it'll take a long time when they're trying to factor the number by running random (!) trial division (!!!). Come on, nobody in their right minds factor large numbers that way. :-) Check this page about ECM factoring instead. :-)

    /* Steinar */

    --
    (This comment is of course GPLed.)
  64. Giant table of Primes by ffatTony · · Score: 2

    Anyone aware of any efforts to map all prime numbers? It seems as though this would be a more worthy use of my computers free cycles and could possbily help efforts like this in the future.

    1. Re:Giant table of Primes by ffatTony · · Score: 2

      By all in my previous post I really mean 'as many as possible' for obvious reasons.

  65. Do something useful instead...cure cancer by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2


    At home and at work I run the United Devices client as it works on the Cancer Research Project. (sorry, Windows clients only)

  66. Great! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
    So your saying there is at least a chance I can crack this!

  67. Oops, client proprietary. by prizog · · Score: 2

    Sure, I would be glad to donate most of the processing power of my 2x1.5 Athlons. But I don't run any proprietary software. It seems utterly ridiculous that a project designed to allow Free Software to run on an x-box (since surely the point of the project isn't simply to run cracked proprietary games -- that would be illegal), is not itself Free Software.

    Sure, there are risks in making the client Free Software -- that is, that someone will submit lots of bogus data. But given the forces who want this to fail -- that is, every proprietary game company who makes games for x-box, plus Microsoft -- I don't think not having source code will stop the submission of bogus data. And the forces who usually submit bogus data -- that is, bored 15 year olds -- will actually want this project to suceed.

    So, make the client Free Software, and I'll start cracking.

  68. Devastating? by alizard · · Score: 2
    If MS is really losing money over the X-Box and Linux will run on it... sounds like a nice way to get lots of cheap CPU cycles in nice, small boxes for a large Web server, render farm, game server, or even... a Beowulf cluster.

    If anyone comes up with workable methods to use 12, 24, 100 of these boxes at a time and actually does it... this is the place to post them.

  69. The point really isn't to crack the key... by Lethyos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it did, that'd be great, but it never will. The point however, would be moot if a genuine attempt was not made.

    The point is thus: to resist technologies that limit what consumers can do with what they legally own.

    Microsoft is a very visible example of an entity trying to tell consumers "you may not do this or that with what you have purchased." In no other industry (save the closely related entertainment industry in this case) do there exist similar shenanigan. If I purchase a computer, I should be damn well permitted to run any type of software on that computer I see fit. The XBox, amongst consoles, is the closest device to a personal computer you can get. And yet, the manufacturer is trying to make it impossible for you to use it how you see fit.

    This project is a protest of such consumer-unfriendly tactics. They will never crack the key, but they are still trying and Microsoft as well as many others will be well aware that they are trying. This is resistance. Microsoft, we will put forth the same effort against DRM technologies like Palladium. We'll never stop.

    Of course, we could all just not buy XBoxes, Windows, Office, and switch to unencumbered/open technologies, but... I digress.

    --
    Why bother.
  70. He's not using Linux, I guess... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    ...or any other form of Unix (or OS/2, or CygWin) that might have bc.

    GnomeCalc broke trying to figure out how many permutations can be represented by a 300-gene sequence (-: turns out to be at least a 24,000 digit number, so who can blame it? :-) but after thinking for a few seconds (on an Athlon 1800), spat out lots of digits. I use wc to count the digits (and allow for the backslashes) at that scale, since I don't know of a calculator with a "How many digits, you reckon?" button.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:He's not using Linux, I guess... by Dahan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      since I don't know of a calculator with a "How many digits, you reckon?" button.

      My calculator has one of those buttons... it's an Hewlett-Packard 11C, and the button is labelled "LOG".

    2. Re:He's not using Linux, I guess... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
      the button is labelled "LOG"

      Good point. I guess it shows how long it's been since I picked up a real calculator.
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  71. Not that unlucky... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    2^2048 == 3.23E618

    Quantum states in the observed universe in 15GA == 1E210

    Bits of data in 300 genes >= 1E24,000


    So... factor-of-three orders of magnitude impossible to specify given only one universe with which to calculate (ie, not "next to no chance" but 400 orders of magnitude beyond "no chance").

    But... factor-of-400 orders of magnitude less impossible than a simple lifeform arising randomly and spontaneously in ideal conditions (at least 23,800 orders of magnitude beyond "no chance"). And that's under ideal conditions and with no stopping for breath. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Not that unlucky... by ryanr · · Score: 2

      But didn't the experimental quantum computer factor something like 15 with 7 qubits? So the number of qubits needed is on the order of the same number of bits you're trying to factor, or maybe twice as many. Heck, for overhead's sake, say it's 100 times as many. Surely we'll eventually be able to round up several thousand qubits.

    2. Re:Not that unlucky... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
      Surely we'll eventually be able to round up several thousand qubits.

      One would expect so, but quantum physics has concealed some interesting surprises before today, I see no reason for it to suddenly stop doing that. (-:

      Talked to one of the IT people in UWA's Anatomy department yesterday too, and it seems the odds I've been giving on life are way too good.
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  72. Re:Why brute force? by demo9orgon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Straight up, we need to leave the Von-Neuman crap serving webpages and go straight to using a DNA matricies and a highly paralleled quantum system to work through solution sets instead of pushing a brute-force asymmetric namespace around. If we can use simple DNA we can manipulate massive datasets in realtime. Ackerman has probably danced around such ideas (he's the "A" in RSA) and avoided them in to avoid showing up on spook-radar and being forced to live in another country.

    If the key to the survival of the Federal Govt. rested on cracking a paltry 2048bit encryption key the NSA/NCSA would have it done in time to recive a bonus and loads of poorly documented funding for more happy-fun projects after lunch the same day. Of course I'm probably being optimistic, but I deal the plausibility card based on the idea that if the government could not somehow deal with RSA algorithms, they would be outlawed. For a time they were, but that seems to have passed.

    And on a personal note, I would love to see the classification for the XBox go from "Game Console" to "Personal Computer" and see every single game they have for it pulled out of Blockbuster and every other rental location. Why you ask?
    Because there are laws in the United States for what qualifies as a product you can rent software for. Computers, like the kind used to submit this reply, are ineligible for software rentals. Due to the accessories, Secondary storage, and shared software libaries like DirectX, the Xbox should be considred a computer and maybe even an example of Palladium in action.

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  73. Re:The Code is 42 by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    It is 42!

    Oh sorry i am wrong, it needs at least 80 digits. That is a big post-it.

  74. Funny if by racerx509 · · Score: 2

    Now what would be really ironic is if the number crunching done to crack the code were to be done by a beowulf cluster of x-boxen

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
  75. I've got a GREAT idea by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2

    How about this: patent the creation of an RSA key for the purposes of copy-protection in console gaming systems.

    After your patent is unceremoniously granted, Microsoft will have to release their key in order to prove prior art. If not, just sue them. You'll win, of course.

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  76. Re:But then how would I play Halo? by salimma · · Score: 2

    Well, buying an X-Box for playing games is fair enough - it is what it is designed for.

    I don't really play the kind of games made for consoles, but I do still keep Windows XP myself since the strategy games I play are still a bit flaky played under WineX...

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut