Read the original article here.

---

Unlocking the Vault: Understanding Brute-Force Attacks in the Forbidden Code

In the underground world of digital exploits, techniques range from subtle social engineering to complex zero-day exploits. Yet, one of the most fundamental, persistent, and often surprisingly effective methods is the brute-force attack. While conceptually simple, mastering its nuances, recognizing its limitations, and understanding the tools that accelerate it are crucial skills in the "Forbidden Code" arsenal.

This resource delves into the mechanics, theory, practical applications, and countermeasures surrounding brute-force attacks, revealing why this seemingly crude method remains a relevant weapon against digital defenses.

What is a Brute-Force Attack? The Core Concept

At its heart, a brute-force attack is the digital equivalent of trying every single key on a keyring until the lock opens.

Brute-Force Attack: A method of gaining access to a system, encrypted data, or secure resource by systematically testing every possible password, passphrase, or cryptographic key until the correct one is found.

It's the polar opposite of relying on cleverness, exploiting logic flaws, or using stolen credentials directly. Instead, it leverages computational power and sheer volume of attempts.

Think of it as an exhaustive search: you define the potential space of possibilities (e.g., all combinations of letters and numbers up to 8 characters long) and then mechanically try each one.

While often associated with password guessing, the technique is broader:

Exhaustive Key Search: A specific type of brute-force attack where the attacker attempts to guess a cryptographic key, often derived from a password or passphrase using a Key Derivation Function.

This approach is foundational because, in theory, it can be used to attempt to decrypt any encrypted data, or access any protected resource, as long as you know the structure of the data or the login mechanism. It's the fallback when no other, more efficient weaknesses are apparent.

The Mechanics: Trying Every Door

The basic process is straightforward:

1. Define the Target: Identify the input you are trying to guess (e.g., a password field, an encryption key).
2. Define the Search Space: Determine the set of characters that could be used (e.g., lowercase letters, uppercase letters, numbers, symbols) and the potential length range.
3. Generate Combinations: Systematically create every possible string within the defined search space. This starts with the simplest combinations (e.g., 'a', 'b', 'c', ..., 'aa', 'ab', ...) and expands.
4. Test Combination: Submit the generated combination as the password or key.
5. Check for Success: See if the system accepts the combination (e.g., successful login, decrypted data makes sense).
6. Repeat: Continue from step 3 until the correct combination is found or the search space is exhausted.

For example, guessing a 3-digit PIN using only numbers (0-9): The search space is {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. Possible combinations: 000, 001, 002, ..., 998, 999. There are 10^3 = 1000 possibilities. A brute-force attack would try them all sequentially or in some defined order.

The term "hammering" is sometimes used to describe this relentless, repetitive process, while "anti-hammering" refers to the countermeasures designed to stop it.

The Exponential Barrier: Why It Usually Doesn't Work (Against Strong Defenses)

The primary reason brute-force is often impractical against modern security is the sheer size of the search space. The number of possible combinations grows exponentially with:

1. Length: Adding just one character dramatically increases the possibilities.
2. Character Set Size (Diversity): Using a mix of lowercase, uppercase, numbers, and symbols (a larger character set) creates many more combinations than using just lowercase letters.

Consider a password:

• 4 lowercase letters: 26⁴ ≈ 450,000 possibilities
• 4 letters (mixed case) + numbers: (26+26+10)⁴ = 62⁴ ≈ 14.7 million possibilities
• 8 lowercase letters: 26⁸ ≈ 209 billion possibilities
• 8 letters (mixed case) + numbers + symbols (~32): (26+26+10+32)⁸ = 94⁸ ≈ 6 x 10¹⁵ possibilities (6 quadrillion)

The jump from 4 characters to 8 is massive. The jump from 8 to 12 or 16 is astronomical. This is the core concept behind using longer, more complex passwords and keys – they make the brute-force search space prohibitively large.

The Theoretical Limits: Physics vs. Computability

The theoretical limits of computation pose a fundamental barrier to brute-force against very large key spaces, particularly in cryptography.

Landauer Limit: A theoretical lower bound on the energy consumption of computation. It states that erasing one bit of information requires at least kT ⋅ ln 2 of energy, where k is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature, and ln 2 ≈ 0.693. This limit applies to irreversible computations, where information is lost (like flipping a bit from 1 to 0 without knowing its prior state).

Attempting to cycle through all possible values for a large cryptographic key, say a 128-bit symmetric key (2¹²⁸ possibilities), would involve an immense number of irreversible operations (bit flips). Even operating near room temperature, applying the Landauer limit suggests the energy required would be staggering – on the order of 10¹⁸ joules, equivalent to consuming tens of gigawatts for a year.

This theoretical argument suggests that brute-forcing a sufficiently large key (like 128 bits or more) is not just computationally hard, but potentially physically impossible with current or foreseeable technology operating under conventional principles.

Reversible Computing: A theoretical model of computation where computation is reversible, meaning no information is lost. Such computation would not be subject to the Landauer limit's energy requirement. While theoretical, no practical reversible computers are known to exist.

However, these are theoretical limits. The "Forbidden Code" exists in the real world, and real-world systems often have practical weaknesses that bypass these limits entirely.

Practical Acceleration: Bringing the Hammer Down Faster

Despite the exponential barrier, brute-force attacks are far from obsolete. This is where practical techniques and tools come into play, often exploiting advancements in computing.

Hardware Power: The GPU and FPGA Revolution

Traditional CPUs (Central Processing Units) are designed for general-purpose tasks. Cryptographic operations, particularly key testing, are often repetitive and parallelizable (you can test many keys simultaneously). Modern hardware excels at parallel processing.

• GPUs (Graphics Processing Units): Designed for rendering graphics, GPUs have thousands of small cores optimized for parallel computations. This makes them extremely effective at tasks like hashing and password cracking, where the same operation is applied repeatedly to different inputs. They are widely available and offer high performance for their price. Examples using tools like Hashcat with powerful GPUs (like the Nvidia RTX 4090) show speeds capable of testing hundreds of billions of password combinations in short periods for certain types of hashes (like NTLM).
• FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays): Customizable hardware chips that can be programmed to perform specific operations extremely efficiently. For cryptographic tasks, FPGAs can be significantly more energy-efficient per operation than GPUs or CPUs and can offer even higher levels of parallelism for certain algorithms. Specialized FPGA clusters like COPACOBANA have been built specifically for cryptanalysis, offering performance equivalent to thousands of conventional PCs on certain algorithms with significantly lower power consumption.

These hardware advancements turn the brute-force threat from theoretical to practical against targets that were previously considered secure against it, especially for offline attacks or specific algorithms (like WPA/WPA2 hashes) where the workload per guess is relatively small.

The Real Weakness: Exploiting Implementation Flaws

Often, a system thought to be secure against brute-force isn't cracked by overcoming the theoretical computational barrier, but by discovering that the actual search space is much smaller than intended. This is a cornerstone of practical "Forbidden Code" – exploiting flaws in design or implementation rather than breaking perfect crypto.

Key culprits include:

• Poor Random Number Generators (RNGs): Cryptographic keys and other security parameters are often generated using RNGs. If these generators lack sufficient entropy (true randomness), the pool of possible keys becomes limited and predictable. This dramatically shrinks the search space, making brute-force feasible. Famous historical examples include:
  • Netscape's implementation of SSL in the 1990s, where session keys relied on predictable values, allowing them to be cracked quickly.
  • A flawed Debian/Ubuntu version of OpenSSL in 2008 that generated weak keys due to an initialization error.
  • The breaking of the Enigma machine's code during WWII, partially due to operator errors (implementation flaws) that reduced the effective key space and provided cribs for cryptanalysis.
• Weak Key Derivation Functions (KDFs): A KDF converts a password into a cryptographic key. If the KDF is too fast, it allows attackers to test many password guesses per second, making offline attacks on captured password hashes much faster. Modern KDFs (like scrypt, Argon2, bcrypt) are designed to be computationally slow precisely to increase the cost of brute-force attacks.
• Using Short Passwords/Keys: Users choosing short, simple passwords is the most common "implementation flaw" making brute-force (or more commonly, dictionary attacks) trivial.
• Re-using Keys: If the same key is used for many messages, it provides attackers with more data to work with, potentially revealing patterns or implementation flaws that aid cryptanalysis.

In the context of "Forbidden Code," understanding these practical weaknesses is far more valuable than grappling with the Landauer limit. Real-world systems break not because crypto is weak, but because its implementation is flawed.

Variations and Related Techniques

While "brute-force" strictly means trying every possibility, in practice, attackers often combine it with other techniques or use more targeted variations to improve efficiency.

Dictionary Attacks

Dictionary Attack: An attack method that attempts to guess a password or passphrase by trying common words, phrases, names, and previously leaked passwords contained in a pre-compiled list (a "dictionary").

This is often the first step before a full brute-force, as millions of users use common, predictable passwords found in dictionaries. It's vastly more efficient than pure brute-force against weak passwords because the search space is much smaller (a list of millions of words vs. trillions of character combinations). Brute-force is typically only necessary if dictionary attacks fail, especially against longer, random passwords.

Credential Recycling (or Credential Stuffing)

Credential Recycling: The practice of taking lists of username and password combinations that have been leaked or stolen from one data breach and automatically attempting to use them to log into other online services (websites, applications).

This isn't brute-force in the sense of generating new password guesses. Instead, it brute-forces known, previously successful credential pairs against a large number of targets. It relies on the common user behavior of reusing the same password across multiple accounts.

A related technique is Pass the Hash, which is more advanced.

Pass the Hash: An attack method where an attacker authenticates to a system using a stolen password hash instead of the actual plaintext password. This is possible in systems that accept hashed credentials directly for authentication, especially if they use weak or unsalted hashing algorithms (like NTLM, historically). It bypasses the need to brute-force the plaintext password from the hash.

Reverse Brute-Force Attack (or Password Spraying)

Reverse Brute-Force Attack (Password Spraying): An attack where a single, common password (or a small list of very common passwords) is tested against a large list of usernames.

Instead of trying many passwords for one user, you try one password for many users. This tactic is particularly effective against systems that lock accounts after a few failed password attempts for a single username. By trying one password across hundreds or thousands of users, you minimize the chance of triggering account lockouts, spreading the attack attempts thinly across the target user base. Attackers will often use lists of leaked usernames and combine them with common passwords like "Password1!", "Summer2023", or variations based on the target organization's name.

Building Fortresses: Countermeasures ("Anti-Hammering")

Just as attackers refine their methods, defenders implement countermeasures to thwart brute-force attempts. Understanding these defenses is vital for both attacking (knowing what obstacles you face) and defending.

Countermeasures are most effective against online attacks, where the attacker is interacting directly with the target system (e.g., a login page). Offline attacks, where the attacker has obtained a password hash file or encrypted data, are much harder to defend against using these real-time interaction methods, as the attacker can run their cracking process at maximum speed without detection or interference from the target system.

Common Online Countermeasures:

1. Rate Limiting: Restricting the number of login attempts allowed from a specific IP address, username, or globally within a certain time frame (e.g., 5 failed attempts per minute per IP).
2. Time Delays: Introducing a mandatory delay between failed login attempts, making automated rapid-fire attempts impractical. The delay might increase with successive failures.
3. Account Lockout: Temporarily or permanently disabling an account after a predetermined number of failed login attempts within a time period.
4. Increased Complexity (CAPTCHA/MFA): Requiring users to complete a task difficult for bots (CAPTCHA) or provide a second form of verification (Multi-Factor Authentication) after a certain number of failed attempts or as a standard part of the login process. MFA is particularly effective as it requires the attacker to compromise another device or account besides just guessing the password.
5. IP Address Blocking: Blocking IP addresses that show suspicious brute-force behavior. However, attackers can use botnets or proxies to distribute their attempts across many IP addresses.
6. Traffic Filtering: Using firewalls or intrusion prevention systems to detect and block traffic patterns indicative of brute-force activity.
7. Monitoring and Alerting: Detecting brute-force attempts in real-time and alerting security personnel.
8. Decoy Credentials: Creating fake user accounts with known weak credentials. If these accounts are targeted, it signals an attacker is attempting credential stuffing or reverse brute-force, triggering alerts without compromising real user data.
9. Invalidating Authentication Caches: Ensuring that failed login attempts are processed and counted correctly across distributed systems, preventing attackers from bypassing limits by hitting different servers. (Mentioned in the MITRE D3FEND framework).

The MITRE D3FEND framework provides structured guidance for implementing these and other defenses against brute-force attacks.

Unbreakable Codes? The One-Time Pad Exception

While brute-force is theoretically applicable to any encryption, there is one class of system that is information-theoretically secure and thus cannot be defeated by brute-force alone if implemented perfectly: the One-Time Pad (OTP).

Information-Theoretically Secure: An encryption system is information-theoretically secure if the ciphertext contains no information about the plaintext, beyond its possible length. Even with infinite computational power, an attacker cannot determine the correct plaintext.

One-Time Pad (OTP): An encryption method using a random key that is at least as long as the message, used only once, and combined with the plaintext using the XOR operation.

Why can't brute-force break a perfect OTP? If you have a perfect OTP ciphertext and you try every possible key of the same length, you will indeed generate every possible plaintext of that length. One of those plaintexts will be the original message, but there will be no way for you to know which one it is. Every decryption will look equally valid and random.

For example, encrypting "YES" with a random key might produce ciphertext "XYZ". Brute-forcing this ciphertext would yield "YES" with one key, "NOO" with another, "CAT" with a third, and so on, for every possible three-letter combination. You have no way to distinguish the correct one from the others.

However, just like other systems, the security of OTP relies entirely on its implementation. Historical breaks of systems intended to be OTP (like during the Venona project) relied on flaws such as:

• Keys being reused (making it a two-time pad, which is breakable).
• Keys not being truly random.
• Operators making errors that revealed information about the plaintext or key.

So, even the theoretically "unbreakable" systems fall prey to practical implementation failures – a recurring theme in the "Forbidden Code".

Conclusion: The Hammer Remains in the Toolbox

Brute-force attacks represent a fundamental, albeit often inefficient, method in digital intrusion. While theoretically difficult against strong, perfectly implemented cryptographic systems with large key spaces, their effectiveness surges dramatically when confronting:

• Weak passwords chosen by users.
• Systems lacking proper online countermeasures (rate limiting, MFA).
• Implementation flaws in cryptographic systems (poor randomness, weak KDFs).
• Specific scenarios favoring variations like dictionary attacks, credential stuffing, or password spraying.
• Targets where specialized hardware acceleration (GPUs, FPGAs) can be brought to bear.

Understanding brute-force is not just about recognizing its basic definition; it's about appreciating the exponential challenges it faces, the technological advancements that can overcome them, and critically, the common human and system errors that turn it from a theoretical exercise into a devastatingly practical attack. In the world of "Forbidden Code," finding and exploiting these real-world weaknesses is often the true path to success.