5 ms·

I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime? Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash.

by anfilt 8y ago

I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime? Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just guessing. That's just math. The crime was hacking the system to get the hash. Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent people.

eesmith 8y ago
Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime? The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking. The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password. Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist. By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.
- anfilt 8y ago
  I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment. However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information. Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak. However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about. For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange. I was unaware linux was special software....
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Analogies are imperfect. I don't think it's important to explore the flaws in the analogy to understand the point I explained earlier, which is that the indictment is not specifically about trying to crack a password. "Assange could have ...". That is something for the defense to argue. This is an indictment. They need only convince a grand jury that there's a reasonable likelihood of conspiracy. "Special" in this case almost certainly means "does not come as a standard part of computer she was using." EDIT: I just remembered that a physical key can also contain information about the person. I had a landlord who keyed all the room doors on the building. He asked me for 4 digits, for the pin depths I wanted on my door. I used "2718", which hints at a math background. Feyman has a similar story about guessing safe combinations while at Los Alamos - I chose 2718 as an homage to that story. A key pattern or a combination is "just a piece of information".

by anfilt 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime? The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking. The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password. Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist. By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.

anfilt 8y ago
I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment. However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information. Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak. However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about. For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange. I was unaware linux was special software....
- eesmith 8y ago
  Analogies are imperfect. I don't think it's important to explore the flaws in the analogy to understand the point I explained earlier, which is that the indictment is not specifically about trying to crack a password. "Assange could have ...". That is something for the defense to argue. This is an indictment. They need only convince a grand jury that there's a reasonable likelihood of conspiracy. "Special" in this case almost certainly means "does not come as a standard part of computer she was using." EDIT: I just remembered that a physical key can also contain information about the person. I had a landlord who keyed all the room doors on the building. He asked me for 4 digits, for the pin depths I wanted on my door. I used "2718", which hints at a math background. Feyman has a similar story about guessing safe combinations while at Los Alamos - I chose 2718 as an homage to that story. A key pattern or a combination is "just a piece of information".