Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
1st October 2009, 04:41 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 125
|
Pseudorandom processing key search, a joke?
I am very bored and want some Processing Keys, so I began searching Japanese websites. I stumbled across MKB full and MKB random (version 0.2 by taku). They appear to generate possible Processing Keys and test them against a Blu-ray.
But this is madness! Unless this program is using good guesses, it will never find the key! There are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible keys (340 undecillion). Even if it took 1ns to check, these programs will run for ten sextillion years. Does 'taku' know something I do not? |
1st October 2009, 20:04 | #5 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Nope, the player doesn't read the key from the disc. At least not directly
The player can derive the disc key by using data read from the disc (some of that data can only be read with a valid certificate or a hacked drive) combined with secret information that never leave the player! So even if you manage to read all the required data from the disc, that data will be useless for you, unless you also have the secret data that the player "knows". As far as I know, so far the success in hacking AACS was always done by stealing the secrets from a "weak" software player. However AACS has a system to blacklist "broken" players on future disc releases. Therefore "fresh" keys must be leaked for each new disc generation. Of course the player developers try to make it harder to "extract" the secret keys with each update -> cat-and-mouse game For details: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=122363
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 1st October 2009 at 21:41. |
1st October 2009, 20:11 | #6 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 31
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd October 2009, 13:06 | #10 | Link | |
Affable Wanderer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 451
|
Quote:
Wombler |
|
3rd October 2009, 18:36 | #12 | Link |
Affable Wanderer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 451
|
Thanks for that.
So it seems it's not possible to present all the possible keys at once even if you have enough qubits. Odd that, but then everything about quantum physics is counterintuitive. Last edited by Wombler; 4th October 2009 at 16:23. Reason: Typo |
7th October 2009, 19:16 | #15 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Even if every computer on earth did participate, this still would take far too long...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
7th October 2009, 19:43 | #17 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 41
|
the key space is 128 bits, not 64.
bazzerr: processing keys are randomly selected using a strong true-rng. there is no 'starting address code'. you would need to attempt each and every one of the 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 keys. (you could probably eliminate the values of all known processing keys for previous mkbs, and all known revoked device-keys, but that only cuts a hundred or so off that number. hardly a difference in addition the operation necessary to verify that a key is good is two AES operations. 1 to generate a volume-unique key from the processing key and volume-identifier, and 1 to generate a title key from the volume-unique key and the encrypted title key. a heavily optimized application could probably get around 5000-10000 tests per second. lets be generous and say we can squeeze out 10000 seconds. wed still need 34028236692093846346337460743176821 seconds! thats 486117667029 times the number of stars in the universe! as for your distribution idea. lets say there are 6.5 billion people on earth. lets say half (gross overestimate!) of those have computers, and that each of those computers can achieve our 10000 attempts per second (well round it up to 4 billion, to ease the math): >>> ((2 ** 128)/10000)/(4 * (10**9)) 8507059173023461586584365L thats still a lot of seconds bottom line: brute forcing the processing key is always a joke! |
7th October 2009, 19:49 | #18 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
|
Well a sperm whale was suddenly and instantly called into existence moments before hitting the ground, but that didn't stop Douglas Adams from writing a book about it!
@kreet 10000 tests per second is generous anyway. Maybe a parallel FPGA array could handle it?? Could pipe through a lot more than 10000 tests/sec... Last edited by cRTrn13; 7th October 2009 at 19:52. |
7th October 2009, 19:59 | #19 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 41
|
cRTrn13:
(wow! thats hard to type!) even with dedicated hardware it would be practically impossible. sfaik, the biggest key cracked with fpgas was a DES 56 bit key. even that takes a few days, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. remember that each additional bit in the key DOUBLES the time needed to search the space. "The amount of time required to break a 128-bit key is also daunting. Each of the 2128 (340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456) possibilities must be checked. A device that could check a billion billion keys (1018) per second would still require about 1013 years to exhaust the key space. This is a thousand times longer than the age of the universe, which is about 13,000,000,000 () years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_force_attack <-- end of story |
10th October 2009, 21:27 | #20 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
|
Has anyone reviewed the code to see what it does?
processing keys are randomly selected using a strong true-rng. there is no 'starting address code'. you would need to attempt each and every one of the 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 keys. It wouldn't be the first time a DRM used a shortened keyspace and a flawed PRNG (CSS anyone?)
__________________
< War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength!> ^__^ (oo)\_______ (__)\.......)\/\ . . ||----w | . . || . . || |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|