I understand www.lastpass.com uses AES256 algorithm as explained at :
https://lastpass.com/support.php?cmd=showfaq&id=1096
AES utilizing 256-bit keys as well as PBKDF2:
https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/account-settings/general/password-iterations-pbkdf2/
lastpass provides a bar to indicate password strength. Using 'asdf1111' as a password gives a moderate password strength :
Same password but uppercase 'ASDF' provides a stronger password (indicated by green bar) :
Why is uppercase text password stronger than lowercase ? I assume it's related to the AES256 algorithm implementation ?
Related
I'm curious about some basics of MD5 encryption I couldn't get from Google, Java questions here nor a dense law paper:
1-How to measure, in bytes, an MD5 hash string? And does it depends if the string is UNICODE or ANSI?
2-Is MD5 an assymetric algorythm?
Example: If my app talks (http) to a REST webservice using a key (MD5_128 hash string, ANSI made of 9 chars) to unencrypt received data, does that account for 9x8=72 bytes in an assymetric algorithm?
I'm using Windevs 25 in Windows, using functions like Encrypt and HashString, but I lack knowledge about encryption.
Edit: Not asnwered yet, but it seems like I need to know more about charsets before jumping to hashes and encryption. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/10/08/the-absolute-minimum-every-software-developer-absolutely-positively-must-know-about-unicode-and-character-sets-no-excuses/
An MD5 hash is 128 bits, 16 bytes. The result is binary, not text, so it is neither "ANSI" nor "Unicode". Like all hashes, it is asymmetric, which should be obvious from the fact that you can hash inputs which are longer than 128 bits. Since it is asymmetric, you cannot "unencrypt" (decrypt) it. This is by design and intentional.
Only the first 8 characters is encrypted when the Perl crypt function is used. Is there a way to get it to use more characters?
As an example:
$crypted_password = crypt ("PassWord", "SALT");
and
$crypted_password = crypt ("PassWord123", "SALT");
returns exactly the same result. $crypted_password has exactly the same value.
Would love to use crypt because it is a quick and easy solution to some none reversible encryption but this limit does not make it useful for anything serious.
To quote from the documentation:
Traditionally the result is a string of 13 bytes: two first bytes of the salt, followed by 11 bytes from the set [./0-9A-Za-z], and only the first eight bytes of PLAINTEXT mattered. But alternative hashing schemes (like MD5), higher level security schemes (like C2), and implementations on non-Unix platforms may produce different strings.
So the exact return value of crypt is system dependent, but it often uses an algorithm that only looks at the first 8 byte of the password. These two things combined make it a poor choice for portable password encryption. If you're using a system with a stronger encryption routine and don't try to check those passwords on incompatible systems, you're fine. But it sounds like you're using an OS with the old crappy DES routine.
So a better option is to use a module off of CPAN that does the encryption in a predictable, more secure way.
Some searching gives a few promising looking options (That I haven't used and can't recommend one over another; I just looked for promising keywords on metacpan):
Crypt::SaltedHash
Authen::Passphrase::SaltedDigest
Crypt::Bcrypt::Easy
Crypt::Password::Util
I was wondering if there is a way to "test" to see if a particular string is encrypted or not.
I am using Crypt::CBC to encrypt a password with Rijndael.
As it stands my script has a "switch" that is either set as 0 or 1 that tells the script weather or not the password needs to be passed through the decrypt phase in order to be read.
I would like to eliminate that phase if I could.
The reason is I am trying to prevent the users of script from possibly prsenting the script with a situation where the password is encrypted but the "switch" was set to 0 meaning not encrypted because this would create a huge "trainwreck".
change your apps so passwords are only stored encrypted. confusion gone.
Rijndael has a block size of 128-bits so the output will always be a multiple of this.
If the encrypted passwords are hex-encoded then that will give you strings that are a multiple of 32 characters. In fact, with the IV added, the strings will always be at least 64 characters: 128 bits of IV followed by 128 bits of ciphertext block 1.
You could therefore look for strings of the right length that contain only [0-9a-f]. They are probably encrypted because I suspect few people can use a 64-character string of randomness as their real password.
If they're base64 encoded then the strings will be a different length, obviously.
This doesn't guarantee that you can always detect an encrypted password but it's probably not too bad.
I want to use AES encryption in my application. I have come across some open source implementations of aes algorithm. By looking at them, I am confused about the following parameters:
AES key length. It is mentioned that key length should be 128, 192 or 256 bytes. What if my key is simply five digits i.e. 23467
AES plain-text length : is there any restriction on the aes plain-text length ?
AES output: What would be the minimum size of aes output string if my key length is say 5 digits and plain-text is say 10 characters.
Can anyone help me?
AES key length. It is mentioned that key length should be 128, 192 or 256 bits. What if my key is simply five digits i.e. 23467
It seems you're thinking of the key as a password of sorts. It isn't. A cryptographic key isn't meant to be memorized. It is a long string of randomly generated bytes that should be stored somewhere safe.
You can derivate a cryptographic key from a password, though, for instance using a hash function. In that case you input 234567 and use the resulting digest as the key. This has some security implications, however, as it makes your key vulnerable to dictionary and rainbow table attacks. Look up "password based encryption" for details on how to approach this securely; in particular, have a look at PBKDF2, described in RFC2898.
AES plain-text length : is there any restriction on the aes plain-text length ?
AES is the block cipher, the underlying building block of an encryption system. By itself it can only encrypt a single block of data (16 bytes), so cryptographers have created several "modes of operation" that enable us to encrypt a plaintext of arbitrary length. CTR is a fine example of a mode of operation that does not require any padding and can be parallelized.
AES output: What would be the minimum size of aes output string if my key length is say 5 digits and plain-text is say 10 characters.
That's entirely dependent on the mode of operation. In your case it will probably be either 10 (when no padding is required, for example with CTR) or 16 (for block-based modes such as CBC).
I think you mean 128 and 256. (Not 198.)
That's not a key. That's a password. You use an algorithm like PBKDF1 (google it) to derive a key from a password.
No. AES is a block cipher. It works on input blocks that are the same size as the key. You can use as many blocks as you like, chopping up your input into (say) 128-bit blocks. Make sure you use CBC or a similar mode for AES.
Your key is 128 or 256 bits. Your input would be 80 bits (10*8), padded to 128 or 256. Your output length is the same as the key size.
Try to find a crypto library that does most of the work for you. You don't want to mess around with just a basic AES function. You also need to handle IVs, AES modes, possibly a MAC, etc. I can't recommend anything because you don't say what language you're trying to use.
Which symmetrical encryption algorithm to use to encrypt e-mail address(short message)? I would like to have ciphertext to be comparable in length to paintext.
According to Little known features: Symmetric encryption with PGP/GPG:
A little known feature of both PGP and
GPG is that they can also do symmetric
encryption. Just a passphrase is
needed- no public or private keys are
involved. It’s a quick and dirty way
to get strong encryption that even a
novice can use.
To encrypt a file with symmetric
encryption, the syntax is:
pgp --symmetric filename
gpg --symmetric filename
The result is a binary file with the
same name as the original and ".pgp"
or ".gpg" appended.
If the encrypted file must be pasted
into the body of an e-mail message
(instead of added as an attachment),
you’ll want to use the plain ASCII
form of output:
pgp --symmetric --armor filename
gpg --symmetric --armor filename
The result is a plain text file ending
in ".asc"
Decryption is performed using the
usual "-d" switch:
pgp -d filename
gpg -d filename
But I'm not sure this is what you're looking for. Maybe you can clarify your question.
If you really want to have the cipher text comparable in length to the email address, you can use a block cipher in a mode like CFB or OFB that allows encryption of one byte at a time.
However, I don't recommend it, because that gives an attacker a little information about what the message is (how long is the message?). Using an algorithm like 3DES or AES with 16-byte blocks in CBC mode with PKCS #5 padding, most email addresses will be encrypted in two blocks.
I see there is a bit of confusion about lengths of plaintext/ciphertext. Actually, those lengths are quite similar if you use a symmetric encryption algorithm.
Consider a block cipher (e.g. AES). It encrypts 128-bit blocks into 128-bit blocks. So if your plaintext is exactly 128 bits (or its multiple), AES in any mode of operation will produce the ciphertext with the same length. If your plaintext length is not a multiple of 128 bits, then it will get padded to the full block and the ciphertext will be slightly longer (by at most 127 bits). You still can avoid that by using some tricks like ciphertext stealing.
If you use a stream cipher, the encryption process is just XOR-ing bits (or bytes) of the plaintext with bits (or bytes) of the keystream and then the length of the ciphertext is by definition equal to the length of the plaintext.
To answer directly your question, if you don't need any specific format of the encrypted email, just use AES.
If you want the encrypted email to be also in the format of an email, you may want to check how Format-Preserving Encryption works.
#Bobby: ROT13 is NOT an encryption algorithm.
Symmetric block ciphers produce the same length as the input, in multiples of block size (usually 8 bytes or 16 bytes for AES). Because the output is always multiple of block sizes (in fact the output is always the same size as the input and the input must be multiple of block sizes) then you cannot know the original size of the plain text. Common encryption schemes solve this by adding a padding scheme, like PKCS, ISO 10126 or ANSI X923. These schemes place information about the original clear text length in the last block.
If the clear text size is multiple of 8 (16 for AES) then one more block is added to the encrypted text. If the original size is not multiple of block size, then the encrypted size will be rounded up to the next multiple block size.
To this you should add a salt value for each record. A salt (or initialization vector, to be correct) has the same size as a block. Usually is stored in front of the encrypted block.
And finaly you should sign the encrypted value for validation, so you should add a SHA digest, another 20 bytes, otherwise you cannot know for sure if the decrypted value is correct.
So the overall size is (considering AES): 16 bytes (salt) + (clear text size + 20(hash) ) + (16 - (clear text size + 20)%16).
So for john.doe#anydomain.com (lenght 22) the encrypted size will be 16+22+20+(16-10)=64. To decrypt you take the first 16 bytes as salt, decrypt the remaininf 48, the output is lenght 42, you digest SHA the 42-20 = 22 bytes and compare the digets with the last 20 bytes of the decrypted text for validation.
I know is maybe more than you bargained for, but every step in this scheme has a justification.
I would suggest looking into PGP.
To have cypher results comparable with plain text is not a good idea, having differents lenghts is a part of what encryption is about.
I will suggest you one of the most secure encryption algorithms today: AES
But forget about having comparable sizes!
ROT13 or a substitution cypher might work (keys can be changed or exchanged). Encryption with keeping the original text length is...not really that good.
Bobby