On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:04:35AM -0700, Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:02 -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 07:39:07PM +0100, Johan Wevers wrote: > > > Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote: > > > > > > >* 3DES: 8C 0D 04 02 03 02 > > > >* CAST5: 8C 0D 04 03 03 02 > > > >* BLOWFISH: 8C 0D 04 04 03 02 > > > >* AES: 8C 0D 04 07 03 02 > > > >* AES192: 8C 0D 04 08 03 02 > > > >* AES256: 8C 0D 04 09 03 02 > > > >* TWOFISH: 8C 0D 04 0A 03 02 > > > > > > I guess IDEA is 8C 0D 04 01 03 02. > > > > This method for identifying ciphers is not reliable. > > There are many ways for a file to be packed, and this > > method will do the wrong thing for all but one of the > > ways. > > I am from Missouri today, and I am stubborn mule. 8^) > > First, please remember that we are talking about only symmetrically > enciphered files without email etc. Just encrypting a file on the > computer. That was what the person was doing, and they were not > using the --armor (-a) option. You will of course NOT get the > above first six bytes with the armor option since the very first > character is not a valid ASCII text character. > > Please specify at least one way (preferable to have two or three) > where this is not the case for a symmetrically enciphered file > that is written to the disk (not piped into email, etc.). I am > not saying that you are wrong. It is just that I have tried it > quite a few ways and I always come up with the same first six bytes > for any given cipher, including even some where GnuGP gives me > messages like this
I've attached two files that will both give you the wrong answer using the "first six bytes" methodology. David
�^kp�Nj�%�-���jFF� �L
file2.gpg
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
