[V4.1 COMING!] LoganDark's Password Lock
LoganDark 07 Mar 2016
Hello! I have only a few hundred words to please you before you click away, so before you go, let me introduce you to my password lock system. The newest versions (V3 onward) use salting to encrypt the passwords.
What's salting, you ask? Well let me give you the simple version. Salting is a random string added to the end of a password before it gets hashed (encrypted). You need the password and the salt to crack the password, so it is that much more secure. The salt is integrated into the hash itself (not concatenated), so a rainbow table won't work as well as you'd hope...
What makes my system better, you ask? No other system that I know of is this secure. Of course the features are not something to rave about, but the security is unbelievable.
Big changes are written next to the versions in bold. Those changes persist onto newer versions unless otherwise noted. Versions in italics aren't released yet or are no longer available.
Versions:
- V1 (pastebin run Gs1GRuWD)
- V2 (pastebin get PdYf5rwy startup) Encrypts multiple times
- V3 (pastebin get ghasE8KL startup) Uses salting
- V4 (pastebin get BhPk3z1E startup) ComputerCraft's first pbkdf2 lock (credit to Anavrins )
- this password lock is pretty much abandoned by now so i'll just say it right here: don't expect an update
- Updater (pastebin get X4nFw8Bg update) (updates to latest version OR installs the latest version)
License
Edited by LoganDark, 02 August 2016 - 07:40 PM.
LoganDark 16 Mar 2016
To view comments for the most recent version of my system, click here.
Edited by LoganDark, 17 May 2016 - 08:19 PM.
LDDestroier 16 Mar 2016
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
LoganDark 17 Mar 2016
LDDestroier, on 16 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
Although, brute-forcing would not be hard outside of ComputerCraft, on a real machine, possibly running brute-force as it's OS (lol), with real-world hashing with real good speed.
What are you talking about, too many sleep() calls?
LDDestroier 17 Mar 2016
LoganDark 17 Mar 2016
LoganDark 17 Mar 2016
ry00000 17 Mar 2016
LoganDark, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:
LDDestroier, on 16 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
Although, brute-forcing would not be hard outside of ComputerCraft, on a real machine, possibly running brute-force as it's OS (lol), with real-world hashing with real good speed.
What are you talking about, too many sleep() calls?
Yanno, I have a system that can crack a non-salted SHA in about 5 seconds.
ebernerd 17 Mar 2016
LoganDark 17 Mar 2016
Minecrosoft, on 17 March 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:
Uhh, I'm not dumb.
Thanks for your help, but I don't need help unless I ask for it.
ry00000, on 17 March 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:
LoganDark, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:
LDDestroier, on 16 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
Although, brute-forcing would not be hard outside of ComputerCraft, on a real machine, possibly running brute-force as it's OS (lol), with real-world hashing with real good speed.
What are you talking about, too many sleep() calls?
Yanno, I have a system that can crack a non-salted SHA in about 5 seconds.
What makes you think I really care?
Anavrins 18 Mar 2016
moTechPlz 21 Mar 2016
apemanzilla 21 Mar 2016
ry00000, on 17 March 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:
LoganDark, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:
LDDestroier, on 16 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
Although, brute-forcing would not be hard outside of ComputerCraft, on a real machine, possibly running brute-force as it's OS (lol), with real-world hashing with real good speed.
What are you talking about, too many sleep() calls?
Yanno, I have a system that can crack a non-salted SHA in about 5 seconds.
Crack this. Unsalted SHA256 hash. 9 characters, lowercase a-z and numbers only.
3cc5ac3f7e28a9f177e63827899fd3d7d3d96d006ee5f5c86fbbb4ccfc9e1aa3
Edited by apemanzilla, 21 March 2016 - 04:58 PM.
Creator 21 Mar 2016
apemanzilla, on 21 March 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:
ry00000, on 17 March 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:
LoganDark, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:
LDDestroier, on 16 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:
Although, IMO it uses too many sleep() calls, and it DOES look a bit too basic for my taste. But it gets the job done, and is indeed much harder to brute-force than your previous one.
Although, brute-forcing would not be hard outside of ComputerCraft, on a real machine, possibly running brute-force as it's OS (lol), with real-world hashing with real good speed.
What are you talking about, too many sleep() calls?
Yanno, I have a system that can crack a non-salted SHA in about 5 seconds.
Crack this. Unsalted SHA256 hash. 9 characters, lowercase a-z and numbers only.
3cc5ac3f7e28a9f177e63827899fd3d7d3d96d006ee5f5c86fbbb4ccfc9e1aa3
Nowhere to be found on the internetz.
ry00000 21 Mar 2016
EDIT: Not big enough dictionary. (Yes I'm using a dict attack.)
Edited by ry00000, 21 March 2016 - 05:41 PM.
Creator 21 Mar 2016
Anavrins 21 Mar 2016
ry00000, on 21 March 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:
EDIT: Not big enough dictionary. (Yes I'm using a dict attack.)
That's around 6.307 millions times more than what you claimed.
Edited by Anavrins, 21 March 2016 - 08:20 PM.
apemanzilla 21 Mar 2016
ry00000, on 21 March 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:
EDIT: Not big enough dictionary. (Yes I'm using a dict attack.)
ry00000, on 21 March 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:
So much for cracking it in under five seconds.