Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by ostehaps
Nice job solus!

---

Thanks

quote:

---

My suggestion to you is to add a function where your program takes a directory and a password as inputs, then searches for all *.ple files in that directory tree, and decrypts them, naming the output files as *.txt. Possibly with an option of deleting the old .ple files after decryption.

---

Thats what I'm planning to do next
Deleting the old files afterwards is a good idea though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ostehaps
My suggestion to you is to add a function where your program takes a directory and a password as inputs

---

Important correction/note: files in the same directory can be encrypted with different passwords. In other words, instead of "a password", the tool must be able to take "several passwords" when doing batch decryptions...

(and verify that the decryption is correct before deleting the original encrypted files, but that speaks for itself of course. Just as asking the user what to do when a text log already exists; "overwrite or skip")

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Important correction/note: files in the same directory can be encrypted with different passwords. In other words, instead of "a password", the tool must be able to take "several passwords" when doing batch decryptions...

---

Sure it's possible, but it's a good assumption that a person's logs have the same password. But by all means it could be included as an option, it's just not essential.

Read thru these forums (all the threads about the encrypted logs), and you'll see that it is essential.

A lot of people change their passwords regulary and since many also archive logs, many logs are encrypted with different passwords, and this is also the reason why many people say that they can't decrypt logs anymore because they thought they were encrypted with some password, while it actually was encrypted with the other (older) one, etc...

It isn't just one of many smaller and other "options" or "features" which can be added though; it's pretty much mandatory in a batch decrypter

Note: for those who wonder, I did accept this thread because I have to reason to hide the way the file is internally structured. And for those of you less "geeky", let me make something very clear: eve with this information, you cannot decrypt a log without the proper password.

Also, for those interested, the whole encryption mechanism has been redone in Messenger Plus! Live in a much more secure way. Each log can now have its own password and everythins is internally crypted using a public/private 1024bits key pair (in combination to a 256bits synmetric key) and I'm using the latest algorythms that comes with Windows XP.

is there an api to call the decryption of a log? For mplus! live that is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
Note: for those who wonder, I did accept this thread because I have to reason to hide the way the file is internally structured. And for those of you less "geeky", let me make something very clear: eve with this information, you cannot decrypt a log without the proper password.

Also, for those interested, the whole encryption mechanism has been redone in Messenger Plus! Live in a much more secure way. Each log can now have its own password and everythins is internally crypted using a public/private 1024bits key pair (in combination to a 256bits synmetric key) and I'm using the latest algorythms that comes with Windows XP.

---

I could've guessed that there was some reason similar to this as to why he'd let the thread out ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
Note: for those who wonder, I did accept this thread because I have to reason no hide the way the file is internally structured. And for those of you less "geeky", let me make something very clear: eve with this information, you cannot decrypt a log without the proper password.

---

Though, with this information, it is dead easy now to make brute-force attackers/decrypters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Though, with this information, it is dead easy now to make brute-force attackers/decrypters.

---

Brute-forcers are the least effective of all types of decypting.

Do certainly not underestimate to power of brute-forcers!!

And in this case they are the most effective way btw...

As I said, with the info on this page, brute-forcers can be extremely easy made, not to mention relative fast ones.

PS, look at some of the zip decryption brute forcers: 30 million passwords a second on an average computer. Least effective? I don't think so...

Many log file passwords of people are very easly 'guessed'...