Slashdot Mirror


US Government Using PS3s To Break Encryption

Entropy98 writes "It seems that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Cyber Crimes Center, known as C3, has replaced its '$8,000 Tableau/Dell server combination' with more efficient and much cheaper $300 PS3s. Each PS3 is capable of 4 million passwords per second, and C3 currently has 20 PS3s with plans to buy 40 more. Naturally this is only being used to break encryption on computers seized with a warrant and suspected of harboring child pornography."

21 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. What by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    being used to break encryption

    Each PS3 is capable of 4 million passwords per second

    Something doesn't match up. For first the different encryption schemes take different times to try even one password, and even more if you combine several of them together. Secondly you cannot try 4 million passwords in a second if its encrypted content, it takes a lot more than that.

    1. Re:What by edittard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps they're just hitting people with them?

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    2. Re:What by Swift+Kick · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right. The submitter didn't read the article (or lacked the reading comprehension to understand it).

      The article says that "the networked Playstation 3s can process 4 million passwords per second, cutting down on the time necessary to find the correct combination.". Nowhere does it say that a single PS3 can do that.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    3. Re:What by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You usually don't care what the variable encryption scheme is when you're cracking -- typically, there is a method of simply verifying that the password is accurate, which is what they're doing. (Brute-forcing keys is fairly foolish with modern encryption systems, but brute-forcing passwords isn't.)

    4. Re:What by isama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [sarcasm]You are guilty! You won't give us the key so you must be![/sarcasm]

    5. Re:What by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Look, we'll give you a PS3 if you tell us your password.

      "We'll even throw in the HDMI cable. We'll get it eventually; this way you and I can both go home before lunchtime."

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:What by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do you quote US sentences with other countries? "Innocent until proved guilty" comes from US, and while usually true elsewhere too, you seem to just flame with this shit again.

      Sorry to disapoint you but your legal system is only based on ours (I am a UK citizen). The presumation on innocence and the adversarial system you inherited just stems from english common law. Here is a link regarding presumption of innocence:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

      Here is a link on english common law:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

      For the most part it is a reasonable system so your founding fathers chose not to change too much of it when they threw off the yoke of english rule.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    7. Re:What by theaveng · · Score: 4, Funny

      +1 funny.

      What's your password?
      "Please stop hitting me."

      What's your password?
      "Please stop hitting me!"

      What's your password?
      "I TOLD you my password!"

      (smack). No you didn't! You're acting like a child. Stop playing these games. Tell us your password!
      "pleasetophittingme"!!!!!

      (smack). Oh great. He's unconscious.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    8. Re:What by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Could be worse, imagine if it was "fuck you, stupid customs official"

  2. Call me paranoid, but by Eudial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Naturally this is only being used to break encryption on computers seized with a warrant and suspected of harboring child pornography.

    ... suuuuuure.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  3. Lovely encryption by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to know when the Government is cracking the encryption implemented by the public it's "cracking down on child pornography." When it's the public cracking encryption implemented by corporations it's a violation of the DMCA.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  4. Re:Is this April 1st? by Rattenhirn · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the old (pre slim) PS3, you can install Linux legally and without any hard or soft mods. This was also possible with the old (pre slim, see the pattern?) PS2, if you bought a hard disk.

  5. Re:Nit-picking the article by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, only if the person uses characters that can't be typed on a normal keyboard.

    If the smart crooks are using any version of Windows then they can access all extended characters from their normal keyboard by holding down the ALT key and typing the character code on the numeric keypad.

    I used character 255 back in the Windows 3.1 days to make directories that no one else could figure out how to get in to. (DOS had no problem but windows couldn't handle a file with that character in the name)

  6. Re:And the problem with this is??? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>>There is nothing wrong with this legally.

    Nope. Searches performed with the permission of a judge (warrant) are perfectly legal. ----- That's fine. It's the law that needs to be changed. IMHO there should actually be three stages - childhood, teenager, and adulthood. Then we'd no longer have the nonsense of teenaged boy/girlfriends being charged for "child porn" simply because they took photos of their own bodies. (For that matter nudity shouldn't even be illegal, regardless of age.)

    >>>wiretap without a warrant is what I am worried about.

    Agreed, As Judge Napolitano keeps repeating, the Patriot Act gives federal cops the ability to write their own warrants, without need to stand before a judge and swear an oath. That's just plain ridiculous.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. Hmmmm by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the planned 60 PS3s assuming they brute force it and worst-case. It will take them:

    At 8character passwords w/ letters and numbers only, 3.3hours.
    Upper and lower case increase that figure to 10.5days. (With 9 characters 7.15years)
    84character set brings us up to 119.5days.
    Note: I just used x^8 which isn't totally accurate, the numbers in reality are a bit larger but it doesn't matter much.

    This makes me wonder in case this is true. We are running up to a physical limitation in the human brain. People already have trouble memorizing the dozens of 8character passwords. 9 characters will hold moores law off for a few more years (not the precise meaning of moores law but you know what i mean). The problem is also that people are getting more accounts for things. Most people even today use the same passwords for a variety of things. I'd say almost all people.

    So I ask the /. crowd are there any good alternatives to passwords that are feasible? Something secure. Something that can be implemented on websites. What do you think we should be working towards? Is there already something in place that you can give an example of?

  8. Re:Wow, 4 million passwords per second... by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, with a brute force attack, I've only got 36,030,233,524,592,808,479,552,335 years before they will reach mine!

    Thanks, we'll just skip ahead to the password we would have be trying 36,030,233,524,592,808,479,552,335 years from now, and crack your encryption today!

  9. This only works on poor passwords by Khopesh · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've done a lot of password-cracking math, even toyed with the idea of writing an academic paper on it. Generally, I work on the (generous) assumption that a well-groomed single node can chunk through 100k passwords per second and that things scale perfectly, so 20 nodes would work through 2M passwords per second. They're claiming their 20-node cluster can handle twice that, and I fully believe it. Powerful GPUs are known to perform extremely well on password cracking, and PS3s certainly have them. That's twice the performance for half to a fifth the cost. Nice, but not "OMG."

    They plan to scale up to 60 nodes, which is 12M pass/s. To break a 8-character monospace password (37 bits of complexity, which is pretty weak), it would take just under five hours ( 26^8/(12*10^6) /60/60 ). However, to break an 8-character alphanumeric password (case and numbers), that becomes seven months ( (26+26+10)^8/(12*10^6) /60/60/24/365*12 ).

    This is only scary when you have a super-intelligent dictionary attack. Scrape the hard drive and any subpoenaed documents for words and add that to a dictionary of common password parts, then perform your dictionary attack -- dreadfully powerful. To avoid falling victim to this, a good rule of thumb is that words are awesome to use, and they're more secure, but they're only about as secure as two random characters (three with a rich vocabulary including 3 or more of: arcane words, uncommon foreign words, uncommon misspelled words, uncommon proper nouns, l33t-speak ...). So that 13-char "secure password" you use that looks like metropolitan8 effectively only has three or four characters to a dictionary attacker, and that clever 14-char password of spageti4dinner has only five or six, depending on how good the attacker's dictionary is at misspelled words. A tip: put punctuation inside your words to break them up (without forming words), e.g. metr[opo;%litan8, and you've pretty much defeated the dictionary attack.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:This only works on poor passwords by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

      However, to break an 8-character alphanumeric password (case and numbers), that becomes seven months

      Ah... theory!

      In practice, even very long passwords are trivially cracked in little time, using simple methods.

      Unfortunately, I lost the source, but while studying cryptography myself, I stumbled upon a quote from some guy involved in government decryption in the US, and (paraphrasing), he said that their technique was basically to pick up the hard disk from the machine with the protected content, and then simply try every consecutive range of bytes as a password.

      Unless the disk was encrypted with 'whole disk encryption', it works something like 90% of the time, simply because of stupid software saving plain-text passwords, users reusing passwords for various purposes, things like hibernation and page files, etc... I suspect that on disks from corporate networks, it would work even better, because if any one disk reveals the network admin password, you can unlock everything else from there.

      So if you have a 100 GB disk, and you try all byte ranges from 4 to 20 bytes long (to account for various password lengths), and you try every byte range as both an ASCII and UTF-16 string, that's merely 17x2x100*10^9 = 3400 billion passwords to try, or 3.2 days at your quoted "12 million passwords per second".

      In practice, most disks would crack much faster than that, if you aim the algorithm at the most likely sources first, such as the page and hibernation files, the user registry, and the web browser cache and configuration folders.

      The lesson I took away from that is that against an attacker with physical access, it really doesn't make the slightest difference how strong your password is, unless the entire disk is encrypted.

  10. Re:Obama fails again... by ppanon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's pretty simple. The military courts are appropriate for combatants captured on a foreign field of battle. By trying KSM and the others in civilian courts (because the 9/11 victims were civilians on US soil), the case establishes a couple of things that neo-cons don't want to happen:

    a) since evidence obtained through torture is ineligible in civilian courts, the information used by the prosecution will be what was obtained before he was tortured. So when KSM gets convicted on the basis of all the incriminating information that was available prior to torture, it will be a strong indictment that the torture used on him was not necessary. The whole neo-con "we had to torture" argument is shown for the pack of lies it is. Since Cheney was the biggest proponent of torture, it's not surprising he's also the most opposed to this happening since a conviction changes his place in history from question mark to a sadistic torturer.

    b) it re-establishes the primacy of the standard US criminal justice system for acts committed on U.S. soil.

    Basically, if KSM and his buddies can be convicted and put in jail through the civilian courts, it means that the wholesale raping of the Geneva Convention, habeus corpus, and other civil rights by the (neo-con) Republicans was unnecessary. It also sets a strong counter-precedent in case the neo-cons (inevitably) try the whole "Permanent Emergency" gambit again.

    So yeah, the neo-cons and their water bearers like Lieberman are seriously against this and using FUD to slam the effort. Big surprise.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  11. Re:Obama fails again... by G-Man · · Score: 4, Insightful

    - All those officers and enlisted in the Pentagon would be surprised to know they are civilians.

    - Are they going to release KSM if he is acquitted? If not, this is just a show trial and a sham.

    - Whatever your stance on waterboarding, they didn't do it to KSM to get him to confess. They did it to acquire intel to prevent further attacks and/or take the battle to Al Qaeda.

    - During an interview with NBC tonight, the interviewer asked Obama if people would find it offensive that KSM would receive all the rights of an American citizen in a trial. Obama replied "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Pre-judging much? Tainting the jury?

    Come on. This is no trial in any real sense of the word. Other observers have pointed out that no one wants to see this guy walk, so the judges and prosecution will go through any contortion, no matter how ridiculous, to see him convicted. Whatever rulings they issue will then become precedent the Govt can use against everyday criminals (i.e., you and me).

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the *enemy*. He cannot be rehabilitated. He cannot be reconstructed. He and his comrades would seek the overthrow of our system of government and its replacement with Sharia law. He is not a common criminal, and it is disrespectful to treat him like one - and you should always respect your enemy. Send him to his god and be done with it.

  12. Re:I call sheeninagan on that by bertok · · Score: 4, Informative

    That would only works if the password is kept on a temporary file. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever the password would be anywhere on disk. And that does not work at all if you use a bootable CD.

    But that's not how it happens in the real world. Most people don't run their computers from read-only media with the swap turned off!

    First of all, there's lots of bad developers out there. Passwords get saved all over the place, in the registry, configuration files, etc... I've seen web sites that were "https", but then put the plain text password into the URL, which is saved in the unencrypted browser history!

    Second, even if you store passwords in memory only, the pagefile might still contain it, if a page containing the password was swapped out. It's even more likely with hibernation files, which swap out everything, including kernel space marked as non-pageable.

    In theory, there's features like "protected memory" that developers can use to store passwords securely in memory, but this takes a lot of work. In Win32 there's a set of APIs for it, but many developers don't use it, or haven't even heard of it. It's such a low level "buffer manipulation" style API that lots of high-level languages can't or don't use it. It's only recently that C# got support for it, for example, and I don't think Java has anything comparable. Most garbage-collecting languages are vulnerable, because memory can be relocated (copied) at any time, which may prevent buffers from being properly cleared.

    One of the worst culprits are those "I forgot my password" web pages that email you your plain text password to your mailbox, so that your email client can then cheerfully write it all over the place. Even if you encrypt your PC's disk, but use corporate email, your password is now in plain text, on the server's disk.

    In practice, real security is hard. Very, very hard. As a consultant, I've been to over 100 clients, including major banks and very security sensitive government institutions, and I've only ever seen 2 secure networks: One financial services company, and the internal LAN on the new generation Boeing planes.