Does it seem like it's decoding a bit slower?

[Timex]

Just updated my seq to 4.3 and of course using the new libEQ.

My linux box is running Redhat 7.2, P2 350, 448 ram. With the previous version of seq I was able to decoded the packets usually in less then a minute.

Now it seems I've got to wait 2-5 minutes before it is able to decode. Anyone else notice this as well or is it just me?

[grimjack]

Mine seems to decrypt spawns as soon as I summon my horse as always.

[datadog]

Decoding is done brute force. It can take a while in underpopulated zones where this is not a lot of despawn/repawn going on.

Im sure as time goes by the geniuses that broke the encryption and updated the src code will optimize things a bit.

From what I read over on the Dev forum the new encryption is longer than the old one, so Its not difficult to imagine it taking longer.

[Mr Guy]

The compile is taking longer and longer for me on my ancient hunk of junk, but the decode is the same as always.

Nothing
Nothing
Nothing
Instant

[KaL]

Mine seems to decode more quickly and more reliably than before!
In some zones I would have to wait a few minutes; with the new version, it does it within a minute or less every time.

I'm using a p2-450 256mb RAM.

[Vertigo1]

OK Dorks!

1.)Yes your computer speed effects the speed at which it decodes.

2.) If there are not alot of people in the zone or NONE, it will take longer to decode.

3.) It no one is in the zone, decode will not happen, until something spawns, if you are a pet class.. summon a pet. or have someone zone in.

There ya go!

[Timex]

heh, okay maybe I should invest in a horse then >=) Thanks for the info.

[slartibartfast]

The actual decode time seems to be slightly longer (ie the time that SEQ is frozen), however it seems to crack the key more consistantly that it used to.

I havent yet had to use the summon pet trick or zone multiple times to force a decode, maybe I have just been lucky and have been in populated zones where there are lots of new spawn packets. But it would appear that it is less dependent on these packets than it used to be...

Thankyou for fixing it so quickly. I was blind, but now i can see - It's a bloody miracle - you guys are modern day saints :)

[grimjack]

Originally posted by slartibartfast
The actual decode time seems to be slightly longer (ie the time that SEQ is frozen), however it seems to crack the key more consistantly that it used to.

I havent yet had to use the summon pet trick or zone multiple times to force a decode, maybe I have just been lucky and have been in populated zones where there are lots of new spawn packets. But it would appear that it is less dependent on these packets than it used to be...



This is consistant with my observations. Most of the time it is decoded by the time I zone in. If not, it usualy decodes as soon as I force a spawn (Familiar or horse).

[SEQLurker]

Well, I don't really know what goes in with the key breaking, but given that the old key was 32bits, and the new one is 64bits, that's over 4 *billion* more combinations to try than before. Personally, I'm amazed it finds the key in our lifetime... Must be using the packets for hints somehow, I'd think - straight brute-force seems like it should take forever.

[high_jeeves]

Decoding is done brute force. It can take a while in underpopulated zones where this is not a lot of despawn/repawn going on.

This is not even close to accurate. Brute force would require roughly 10-15 years per zone to crack (thats a rough estimate..). The solution here is not brute force.

--Jeeves

[datadog]

This is not even close to accurate. Brute force would require roughly 10-15 years per zone to crack (thats a rough estimate..). The solution here is not brute force.

I apologize for the 'mis information'. I made the mistake of repeating something I had read here previously that as apparently incorrect.

I could have sworn that I read somewhere in on of the readme's that forcing spawns in a zone will speed the decode process. Perhaps 'Brute Force' is not the right word?

I read a lot more than I post here. Im usually not one to get involved in conversations about stuff I know nothing about. So i'll just shut up and listen.

Beats being called a Dork....

[Ratt]

Well, I don't really know what goes in with the key breaking, but given that the old key was 32bits, and the new one is 64bits, that's over 4 *billion* more combinations to try than before. Personally, I'm amazed it finds the key in our lifetime... Must be using the packets for hints somehow, I'd think - straight brute-force seems like it should take forever.

I just wanted to correct this a bit ...

It's not 4 billion *more* ... it's 4 billion times 4 billion more...

You have the initial 4 billion (32 bit key), tacking on an addition 4 billion (32 bit key) combinations.

I think this would yield 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different key combinations (18 quintillion possible keys). Correct me if my math is off... tough to work with such large numbers :)

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 - 64 bit
4,294,967,296 - 32 bit

To put this in perspective...

Lets say you had a system capable of trying 3 million keys per second. It's not infeasable some of you could have a multi processor system capable of that. It would take you about 24 minutes to try every single possible key... but given the mathematical probability of finding the key, it would take you 12 minutes per key on average. This is assuming you have the fastest CPUs available today running in an SMP configuration (and SEQ supported multi threaded key finding)... 99.9% of you (including myself) do not run on P4 3.06GHZ SMP machines for you SEQ box, I'm sure. More than likely, you have a 1 or 2GHZ machines, possibly even much slower. So your time would increase dramatically... but lets assume you have the best.

Now to crack a 64 bit key with brute force, it would take the same super SMP system 5,124,095,576,030,431 minutes or 3,558,399,705,576 days, or 9,742,367,434 ... yes, 9 billion years. Basically, the sun would grow old and die before your brand new P4 3.06 GHZ 2 CPU system would brute force a 64 bit key.

[TDES]

So what your saying Ratt .. is that I still stand a better chance of breaking the code with brute force, than I do getting my wife to make me dinner ... (sorry .. been one of those days)

Thanks for the trivia .. interesting

[SEQLurker]

Aye, I mis-typed... had it right in my head, but forgot the 'times' in my post... 4 billion times more is what I meant to say. Clearly I hadn't had enough 'Dew' yet. ;)

[Zelar]

datadog, you probably read about the "Brute Force Attack" in the FAQ. Section 4.4 uses the exact words "brute force attack".

Im sure what Jeeves said is completly correct, just wanted to let datadog know that he did read it some where. :)

[baelang]

It's more like a hammer and chisle attack than a Big F-ing Hammer attack.

[Vertigo1]

I'd say more like panning for gold...