Gpcode

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by emperordarius, Jun 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Because you haven't read it properly. What i said is that if they crack this they could crack anything. Why? I highly doubt there is any crypto glitch this time and if they manage to crack RSA itself... do i have to tell more?
     
  2. TNT

    TNT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Posts:
    948
    Yes, as a matter of fact you do, because I don't see for what reason successfully cracking a 1024 RSA would imply that any other algorithm with any other key size can also be cracked. It just doesn't make any sense.
     
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Oh dear. Nevermind...
     
  4. TNT

    TNT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Posts:
    948
    Very good argument, I'm convinced now. If they can crack 1024 RSA some way, they can obviously also crack anything else with any other key size.

    And why not?

    Never mind that it can be a flaw in the implementation, never mind that it can be a flaw in the algorithm that the NSA knows but that that is not present in other algorithms, never mind that (as unlikely as it is that they have it) the computing power to brute force a 1024 bit key is nothing when it comes to say, a 4096 bit key, never mind that that are completely uncrackable encryption schemes such as OTP. I suppose I must believe your "oh dear nevermind" and think "yeah, if they can crack this, they can crack ANYTHING"...
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2008
  5. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    RejZoR,

    Like I said in post 22, it depends on what they find is broken. If it is just the implementation in Gpcode, then the effect will be minimal. If there is a problem is the actual cipher, then there will be problems.
     
  6. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,215
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  7. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
  8. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    252
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I doubt it.

    The order the files are encrypted will most likely prevent recovery. You have file A being encrypted, that is copied to encrypted file CA with file A then deleted. Then you have file B encrypted by being copied to CB and so forth. The problem is when file B is copied to encrypted file CB, it will most likely overlay the space used previously by file A and then some (encrypted files are usually longer). This cycle repeats with every encryption so that the constant creation of encrypted files is enough disc activity to overlay most of the free space from the original un-encrypted files that were deleted.
     
  9. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    This is not a mistake in the implementation of the crypto but an implementation issue nonetheless. The deleted files weren't wiped so it may be possible to recover the files using undelete tools.

    Compare the virus to AxCrypt (not a virus but a well implemented file encryption program). With this program, when files are encrypted, the actual file is actually wiped from the drive so it can't be recovered.
     
  10. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,855
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Source: Kaspersky Weblog

     
  11. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,673
    Location:
    Hawaii
    IMO RejZoR's "Oh dear Nevermind" was intended as a graceful way of backing off from earlier statements. Hey TNT old bean -- no use shooting the wounded, wot?

    Meanwhile, back at the thread -- am I missing something here? If GPcode or such got into my computer's knickers, then (once I recognized the problema) I would merely restore an uninfected image and Poof! -- no more GP code. Uh... is there anything erroneous with this concept?
     
  12. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    Nope but how many of us keep backups?
     
  13. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    don't count on me ;)
     
  14. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,673
    Location:
    Hawaii
    If by "us" you mean computer users as a whole, then the answer is probably "very few."

    However, if "us" refers to the denizens of Wilders, IMO the answer would be "many."

    I not only do periodic full back-ups, I do so on external drives that are turned off when not in actual use. I learned to do this from the many helpful & knowlegeable posters here at Wilders. They taught me WHAT I should do. Threads like this present GPcode thread teach me WHY I should do it.

    These are just a few of the reasons why I hang out here a lot. :thumb:
     
  15. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes by 'us' I mean the general population. Which is very little. That is why viruses like Gpcode work. Because people just dont think to backup.

    I do full backups to an external harddrive and back up documents online via mozy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.