Derek Broughton wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
>> Blaine Fleming wrote:
>>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>>>> You *can't* extract a part of a password like the OP is looking for. The
>>>> algorithm used in creating the encrypted product doesn't look at your
>>>> password as discrete chunks to be guessed like you see in the movies
>>>> where you see, "Oh my @#$! He has the first three numbers already!"
>>>> while you hear a crescendo of suspenseful music.
>>>>
>>> Again, the way I read it the OP wants to find out the missing part. If
>>> I have a password of "password" but all I remember is "passwor" then I
>>> can brute force the remaining bit.
>> Oh my $@! How STUPID CAN YOU BE?! HOW DENSE?! Again, what I said
>> was...oh, I see what you're saying.
>
> I think you missed a :-)

Indeed ;-) But that would have stolen the thunder! C'mon...admit
it...you had to reread that sentence just as you were about to let loose
the dogs of war...

> Fairly easy, I guess if you actually have an unencrypted copy of something
> that was crypted - then you run diff against the output of your new
> decryption and the old data, but if you don't have such a file, there's
> probably nothing as good as your own eyes for knowing when you get it
> right. Though, if some of your crypted data is in known formats (eg,
> email) you just need to be able to look for strings that are part of the
> protocol (like "Subject: ").

Yeah, I was thinking you'd need a small dictionary of some sample texts
or material to scan the result each time for a cursory "Is this it?"
type hits rather than gobbledygook.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Fairly easy, I guess if you actually have an unencrypted copy of something
> that was crypted - then you run diff against the output of your new
> decryption and the old data, but if you don't have such a file, there's
> probably nothing as good as your own eyes for knowing when you get it
> right. Though, if some of your crypted data is in known formats (eg,
> email) you just need to be able to look for strings that are part of the
> protocol (like "Subject: ").
>


Nah. You're trying to hard. With GPG, when decrypting a file it will
just outright fail if the password provided is wrong. So basically, if
it runs successfully then it was able to decrypt and verify the
signature. If it fails then try another password.

--Blaine


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Bart Silverstrim wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>>
>>> Blaine Fleming wrote:
>>>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>>>>> You *can't* extract a part of a password like the OP is looking for.
>>>>> The algorithm used in creating the encrypted product doesn't look at
>>>>> your password as discrete chunks to be guessed like you see in the
>>>>> movies where you see, "Oh my @#$! He has the first three numbers
>>>>> already!" while you hear a crescendo of suspenseful music.
>>>>>
>>>> Again, the way I read it the OP wants to find out the missing part. If
>>>> I have a password of "password" but all I remember is "passwor" then I
>>>> can brute force the remaining bit.
>>> Oh my $@! How STUPID CAN YOU BE?! HOW DENSE?! Again, what I said
>>> was...oh, I see what you're saying.
>>
>> I think you missed a :-)
>
> Indeed ;-) But that would have stolen the thunder! C'mon...admit
> it...you had to reread that sentence just as you were about to let loose
> the dogs of war...

I'm afraid I only have the
dogs-of-complete-inactivity-except-when-we-see-a-squirrel.

>> Fairly easy, I guess if you actually have an unencrypted copy of
>> something that was crypted - then you run diff against the output of your
>> new decryption and the old data, but if you don't have such a file,
>> there's probably nothing as good as your own eyes for knowing when you
>> get it
>> right. Though, if some of your crypted data is in known formats (eg,
>> email) you just need to be able to look for strings that are part of the
>> protocol (like "Subject: ").
>
> Yeah, I was thinking you'd need a small dictionary of some sample texts
> or material to scan the result each time for a cursory "Is this it?"
> type hits rather than gobbledygook.

Right.
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Blaine Fleming wrote:

> Nah. You're trying to hard. With GPG, when decrypting a file it will
> just outright fail if the password provided is wrong. So basically, if
> it runs successfully then it was able to decrypt and verify the
> signature. If it fails then try another password.

LOL! You're absolutely right. Trying too hard...
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
<snip>
>>>> Oh my $@! How STUPID CAN YOU BE?! HOW DENSE?! Again, what I said
>>>> was...oh, I see what you're saying.
>>> I think you missed a :-)
>> Indeed ;-) But that would have stolen the thunder! C'mon...admit
>> it...you had to reread that sentence just as you were about to let loose
>> the dogs of war...
>
> I'm afraid I only have the
> dogs-of-complete-inactivity-except-when-we-see-a-squirrel.

Anyone ever tell you you're a total killjoy?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users