Slashdot Mirror
Distributed.net releases CSC and OGR clients
NIVRAM writes "After six months of waiting, Distributed Net has finally released beta clients for CSC and OGR cracking. They can be found here. (Looks like 'a few weeks' took a bit longer, eh?). For those of you who don't know, distributed.net is a non-profit group which uses the power of many computers to crack large encryption algorythms such as RC5 and the U.S. Government's DES. "
Its karma, Kramer.
And start crunching on CSC and OGR blocks while I keep doing RC5 so my rank increases! :)
CSC and RC5 are at least real contests---OGR is nice, but I'll work towards the monetary goal, thanks.
-Chris
Clients are out for Win32, Mac, and a few other platforms.. the link to the page has the list.
the client is set up so that it does work for shorter contests before it does RC5. Mine is cracking RC5, so does that mean there are no other contests at the moment?
But... rc5 has not finished, has it?
--
Read carefully about what happens to the money. It doesn't go into the D.net staff pockets, it goes into the D.net network, computers, etc etc. Dbaker and Nugget and all the people are not in it for the cash.
Am I the only one that finds it amusing that this story shows up just after one entitled "Expanding Vulnerability of the Net"....?
Too bad there isn't a project which uses floating point. If there was, they could write a client that interleaves floating point with integer calculations to _use more of your computers brain at once_ :) (Pentium CPUs (and others, but I haven't read as much about them) have multiple execution pipelines, so they can start a floating point pipeline working on finding the cosine of something, while the integer pipelines carry on running instructions at full speed. The CPU stalls if some other isns need the result of the multiply before it is done, of course. I think the most recent (PII and PIII (oh yeah, celery too), k6-{2,3}, and k7) all can all have floating point insns running at the same time as integer. I may be wrong on this one. Maybe the x86 doesn't have enough registers to make this work very well though. Oh well, I think the G3 and G4 all have kick ass stuff like this, too. And then there's Alpha. :)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
There must be some other uses for the incredible power of the megasupercomputer that distributed computing creates. I mean other than just cracking the latest encryption algorithm(s).
I'm sure someone will come up with a new and cool use for Dist. Comp.
--krahd
mod me up scottie!
The download page (for RC5 at least) says "The binaries and source here are the ONLY ones you should be using," but I can't find the source packages.
I don't trust programs that upload and download packets without my direct and complete control.
Unless they open the source, my paranoia will prevent me from participating.
-- The Brory Stool Co.: We accidentally the best stools from behind seven proxies, since 2009.
It's nice to see more support/availability for the OGR project. IMVHO this is one of the most useful distributed projects around at the moment. While proving that you can crack RC5 might be fun, it doesn't have a real pay-off at the end, except for the small prize monies. The same goes for SETI@Home, which is a needle in a haystack search for something which may or may not exist.
Of course, OGR is probably also the least exciting to participate in for most people. At the finish of it you have something which is useful (to some people), but hardly greatly exciting for anyone outside of the field. On the other hand, producing a result confirming extra terrestrial life from the SETI@Home project would be interesting or exciting for almost everybody. This is probably the biggest reason (along with the differences in publicity) why more people support the less-likely-to-return-something-useful projects like SETI@Home over something like OGR or GIMPS.
I know, setup up a rendering/raytracing client, so those wanting to play around with making movies with CGI scenes have a way of getting things done sooner...
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
Distributed.net has been cracking RC5-64 for 2 years and has exhausted 15% of the keyspace. A computer 100x as powerful (which is not far fetched if you assume a hardware based solution similar to Deep Crack from the EFF) could brute force the keyspace in a few months. That's not a very large margin of safety since the brute force attack can be trivially twice as fast if you spend twice the amount of money on it. If you assume a brute force attack combined with a cryptanalysis attack, you could be talking days or hours instead of months.
At this point you are banking on the fact that it still would cost a considerable amount of money to build a fast RC5-64 cracking device, probably between 1 and 100 million, and that the benefit of decrypting your transaction is much less than that. Since much more powerful codes exist, it seems silly to take that chance.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
It's great to see many more distributed efforts going on! Imagine a completely network distributed operating system, where idle NC's are given tasks to complete for distributable calculations. Does anyone know if anything like this exists? The protocol would have to account for things such as network bandwidth and saturation, as well as the capabilities of participating NC's.
Cracking codes doesn't really accomplish anything more than proving a point. (Unless you're a government - but since WWII, government codebreakers are mostly the bad guys).
:)
Yes, OGR's actually have some practical use. However, they're only the optimal case of Golomb Rulers, and it's pretty easy to find near-optimal ones - only a couple percent off, at worst. Worse, for any given application, the number of marks that is desirable is bound to increase linearly. Any non-QC method of finding them will fall behind over time, even supercharged by Moore's law. (And the problem with the quantum solution is that it doesn't distribute. 2 128 bit QC's FullOn3d claims. Also, until they have an algorithm that would spot the earth, the chances are miniscule.)
Then there's Casino 21. Cooler graphics, actually useful. On the down side, it's vaporware (no pun intended) and it requires more serious hardware.
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
But really, if any of this stuff gets you to leave the computer on overnight when you wouldn't otherwise, it's doing more harm than good.
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
(although I'm kinda waiting for the day when you can use spare cycles to stress-test beta software. The only problem with that idea currently is that bad software will more often than not bring down your OS with it. At least, with most OS's
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
all you lynx users will have noticed that following the posted link to the d.net/beta/beta.html gives you a Alert: Location URL is not absolute! message, and you lose. Their web server is returning: "The document has moved here" in its 302 Found reply. I've mailed them about it, so don't slashdot their mail server. (I'd like to think that all the /.ers who use lynx add up to something :)
:) Oh this is even better: If I preview with lynx this message as plain text, my pre tag is interpretted as HTML. maybe this is lynx or maybe this is slashdot. watch this: notice that there is a pre tag embedded before just before this sentence
The actual URI that you get to is: http://distributed.net/beta/
(I was going to post this as HTML, so I could make the real addy a hyperlink, but slashdot doesn't allow , and I didn't feel like quoting the interresting part of the first paragraph. curse you slashdot
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
SETI *is* kinda like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Only... we don't know what the needle looks like, where the haystack is, or what we'd do with the darn thing once we've found it!
Crack RC5-64! Why? Cause its there and begging for it and we'll know when we've found it!
later,
Ben.Scherrey@ga.lp.org
Ranked 8297th and climbing!
The beta keyserver is beta.dcti.org. www.dcti.org gives the same page as www.distributed.net. When was the change made (or is this just another test thing)?
This is a directive to all /. linux/bsd/UNIX proponents (of which I am a member.): Do not start a big thread here. We all know that a Real Operating System will not be brought down by anything unless it is run by root.
to keep the raving masses happy, I will try to say what everybody will say. (gee, this is sounding really bad. I'm not trying to censor people, just to stop them wasting their time raving about Linux. sorry.)
Anyway, most operating systems use various schemes to stop random users from bringing down the machine. Most sensible OS designers see the ability to crash the system as a Bad Thing. Only the superuser should be able to do that, and even then only be explicitly using interfaces to the stuff that should be mucked with carefully. There are a couple of "modern" OSes which don't live up to this standard, but the majority of OSes don't crash easily from bad programs. The program goes down, but it cant touch the rest of the system. You should look into this sometime, if you find that your OS does let itself be crashed easily.
oh yeah, and tux rules, so does devil dude (whatever the BSD mascot is called).
If you are really concerned about not crashing, there are several things you could do. Most are well known and rational, but some aren't :)
If I screwed up some here, then I won't be mad if you post more in this thread. Just this is not the place for _another_ OS flameout.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
thanks for that great link to localhost. They have some great software on there. It looks a bit like what I've got on my machine already, but its still useful in case of a disk crash. :) < grin >
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
There's a good reason for that - it prevents people from writing their own versions and mucking with the results. Again, as we've learned from Microsoft, anything you don't inspect and compile yourself can be dangerous, so it's a risk you need to take...
I'm still waiting for _any_ of these cracking clients (or preferably SETI) to start to support the G4's Velocity Engine. Sure, I'm running things pretty fast as they are, but still wouldn't mind an optimized client...
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
Not to be redundant here, but there is a good reason that the client source is closed.
The client source is closes so that some clever programmer doesn't write a client that tells HIM what the winning key is first, allowing him to submit it to the RSA and walk off with the entire 10,000! This would NOT be good!
The CORE to the client IS open source - you can even compile it! If you want to know EXACTLY what your machine is doing, download the core source at http://www.distributed.net/source/ and check it out for yourself! While you're there, could you write a core for the K7? I've looked at it, but it's a tad beyond my meager programing skills.
Open Source IS the coolest thing since sliced bread to be sure, but it's NOT the answer to everything in the whole wide world. This is a clear exception to the "Open Source is Better" rule.
"I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The CS-Cipher description isn't properly available on their Web pages: they require you to turn on Javascript and register before you can fetch the description, and their registration form is broken.
Words cannot describe my contempt and loathing for the unutterably rude people who hide information they should be making freely available behind registration forms, or JavaScript, or worse both. That their form doesn't even work just shows they're incompetent as well as stupidly unpleasant; the two often go together.
Anyway, so, anyone know a perfectly ordinary URL where a description can be found?
--
Xenu loves you!
We're using beta.dcti.org to avoid confusion with our production network. We want to make sure everyone realizes that this is only a betatest, and that all the blocks done by the beta clients will eventually be discarded.
If any dcypher people are reading this: what's the reason behind this effort? D.net has a gazillion participants (well, some 50 000 active ones, at least), and will thus very likely find the correct key before any new effort (unless, of course, all those d.net participants continue to run RC5 instead of CSC). Not to mention that d.net already has released linux and freebsd clients, and d.net's clients are at least partially open source..
As you can see from the public ledger, distributed net has donated almost US$20,000 to selected non-profits such as EFF, FSF, and Project Gutenberg.
What money we have retained has gone directly to supporting the network and buying necessary equipment, and not to staff.
I tried SETI but I just felt that it would never find anything. Right now I'm going with RC5 but I may well switch to OGR.
Specifically I think the criteria for a good project are:
That being said it's hard to find a good fit for these rules. OGR comes close but I think it lacks mass appeal.
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Howdy, Me Again. Okay reasons for not being open source at this very minute. NO TIME. Quite simply we are too busy to fsck with a license that open sources the client and protects us at the same time. As for why we are starting this: Have you noticed how slowly d.net moves from one porject to another. Totally unaccpetable in a commericial environment, and we want to start running projects which are commerical in nature (I.e. large simulationg for large companies, etc.) and actually PAY users for their spare computing time. Steve
I've been running RC5-56/64 for about 30 months now. When I found OGR a while back, I started splitting my CPU time 50/50 between that and RC5. More work on my part to get work units, but it seems like a more worthwhile goal than RC5. Not that I think encryption isn't something that we need to push to be stronger, but we've spent 2 years now to find out "hey, this is really hard" and, well, I like to see SOME real results from my efforts. Now that OGR is thrown in the mix, and it's going to be relatively hands-free, I'll be switching to that project, or splitting my time 75/25.
I currently run SETI on 4x P3-500mhz and RC5-Client on hmm 45 x 300-500Mhz PII-PII (GUI Version!). And now i read about a new Client and want to Download it AND? No GUI Version available???!!! Sorry, no GUI!, no Client!. I hate nonGUI Versions so i run me old GUI as long it works and then i say GoodBye to RC5 and install SETI on all Stations. And for the CSC and OGR Clients i can only repeat no GUI! = no Client! They should consider to release a GUI Version of them i'm sure that many People out there will not install a nonGUI version for some good Reason. Its a Problem anyway that SETI came because now i love SETI more than the RC5 thing so if things turns Bad for RC5 like new CLI versions are incompatible to GUI versions or so RC5 is dead for me. Beside the GUI Troubles where are the PIII optimized Clients anyway? What i can't understand also is that it takes so long to break a 64Bit RC5 Key thats only 8 Bytes not very much?! I use Keys of 8KB for me Ciphers thats Big but Bytes and in RC5 there must be some weak points or why else they have allready RC6 out?! Moooooo.... :)
"Discordianism is not just a religion; it is a mental illness." -- Lord Omar Ravenhurst
Something else to keep in mind is the ability to keep up with demand. SETI@home fails on this one. Not sure if they are still doing this, but for a while there they were sending out duplicate work units because they had more processing power than work units. RC5/64 definitely does not have that problem. Over a year and only 10% of the keys have been checked?
SETI are scanning a relatively limited frequency spectrum, which means that there might be a message out there and we are listening on the wrong station.
I am also waiting on a G4 RC5 client (along with my 2nd. processor for my Umax clone).
In related Distributed.net news, I sent in an email to DBaker telling him that they should get shirts from Copyleft.net (for more information on this, read his latest plan update). I, for one,emailed him about it, so don't fill up his mailbox.
Anyone else have problems with keys sent in Sunday/Monday? I sent in about 200 keys and got credit for 8 of them.
Anyway, enough random distributed thoughts.
(c) 1999 Hank Zimmerman
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
In saying that SETI@Home is more worthwhile, you make the assumption that there is actually something out there to find. There's almost no chance of that.
I meant my "most OS's" comment to be a slam at Win32 and MacOS. The smiley meant "Of course we all know linux is better". Truth is though, most spare cycles are still owned by technically deficient OS's.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I find it curious that you didn't bother to name the project or provide a link to it. Is it the CSC one that's already been mentioned earlier, or another (possibly OGR)?
Mind the Gap
You're forgetting what this article is all about.
:)
OGR has practical applications.
And Seti@home has the cool benefit of potential contact with another species.
But yes, more applications would be nice.
Of course, the more out there, the less processing power each gets...
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Yes, I sent the post in. I don't personally know anyone who works with Slashdot's page. I submitted it because I thought it was an interesting project and I wanted to make sure the readers of Slashdot knew what was goign on. You're free to send in posts, as far as I know, about generally anything. From what I've seen with Slashdot so far, they're fairly impartial as to which stuff they'll post. Don't make me out to be some sort of friend of the Slashdotters, I'm just a Distributed.net supporter and I want to express that
NIVRAM
If you're in it cause theres a prize, you're prolly in it for the wrong reason. Do you think people who use D.net clients care that they may win some money? For the most part, I'd have to say no. They're in it because it allows them to give to a good cause without much hassle on their part. I could care less how much prize money was offered, I support D.net because unlike some causes, they do it because it needs to be done, and because its all around fun. Why don't you come into #distributed on EFnet sometime, see what the project is all about.
No, I don't help run D.net, I'm just one of the many thousands of users, and I like to voice my opinion.
NIVRAM
Kudos to you for starting your own project. Personally, I'm still quite happy with D.net even if some of the people get annoying at times. The D.net ops are easy to work with and very helpful. I'll stick with the project I know is working for the cause I support. D.net's been around for a while, and will continue to be around. Best of luck on your venture
NIVRAM