Become better acquainted with functions and libraries.
Dabble in cryptanalysis.
Pages 11 – 14 and 39 of http://www.howstuffworks.com/c.htm.
Chapters 7, 8, and 10 of Programming in C.
Hacker Edition challenges you to handle extra whitespace in inputs.
Hacker Edition challenges you to crack actual passwords.
This course’s philosophy on academic honesty is best stated as "be reasonable." The course recognizes that interactions with classmates and others can facilitate mastery of the course’s material. However, there remains a line between enlisting the help of another and submitting the work of another. This policy characterizes both sides of that line.
The essence of all work that you submit to this course must be your own. Collaboration on problem sets is not permitted except to the extent that you may ask classmates and others for help so long as that help does not reduce to another doing your work for you. Generally speaking, when asking for help, you may show your code to others, but you may not view theirs, so long as you and they respect this policy’s other constraints. Collaboration on quizzes is not permitted at all. Collaboration on the course’s final project is permitted to the extent prescribed by its specification.
Below are rules of thumb that (inexhaustively) characterize acts that the course considers reasonable and not reasonable. If in doubt as to whether some act is reasonable, do not commit it until you solicit and receive approval in writing from the course’s heads. Acts considered not reasonable by the course are handled harshly. If the course refers some matter to the Administrative Board and the outcome is Admonish, Probation, Requirement to Withdraw, or Recommendation to Dismiss, the course reserves the right to impose local sanctions on top of that outcome that may include an unsatisfactory or failing grade for work submitted or for the course itself.
If you commit some act that is not reasonable but bring it to the attention of the course’s heads within 72 hours, the course may impose local sanctions that may include an unsatisfactory or failing grade for work submitted, but the course will not refer the matter to the Administrative Board.
Communicating with classmates about problem sets' problems in English (or some other spoken language).
Discussing the course’s material with others in order to understand it better.
Helping a classmate identify a bug in his or her code at Office Hours, elsewhere, or even online, as by viewing, compiling, or running his or her code, even on your own computer.
Incorporating snippets of code that you find online or elsewhere into your own code, provided that those snippets are not themselves solutions to assigned problems and that you cite the snippets' origins.
Reviewing past semesters' quizzes and solutions thereto.
Sending or showing code that you’ve written to someone, possibly a classmate, so that he or she might help you identify and fix a bug.
Sharing snippets of your own code online so that others might help you identify and fix a bug.
Turning to the web or elsewhere for instruction beyond the course’s own, for references, and for solutions to technical difficulties, but not for outright solutions to problem set’s problems or your own final project.
Whiteboarding solutions to problem sets with others using diagrams or pseudocode but not actual code.
Working with (and even paying) a tutor to help you with the course, provided the tutor does not do your work for you.
Accessing a solution in CS50 Vault to some problem prior to (re-)submitting your own.
Asking a classmate to see his or her solution to a problem set’s problem before (re-)submitting your own.
Decompiling, deobfuscating, or disassembling the staff’s solutions to problem sets.
Failing to cite (as with comments) the origins of code or techniques that you discover outside of the course’s own lessons and integrate into your own work, even while respecting this policy’s other constraints.
Giving or showing to a classmate a solution to a problem set’s problem when it is he or she, and not you, who is struggling to solve it.
Looking at another individual’s work during a quiz.
Paying or offering to pay an individual for work that you may submit as (part of) your own.
Providing or making available solutions to problem sets to individuals who might take this course in the future.
Searching for, soliciting, or viewing a quiz’s questions or answers prior to taking the quiz.
Searching for or soliciting outright solutions to problem sets online or elsewhere.
Splitting a problem set’s workload with another individual and combining your work.
Submitting (after possibly modifying) the work of another individual beyond allowed snippets.
Submitting the same or similar work to this course that you have submitted or will submit to another.
Submitting work to this course that you intend to use outside of the course (e.g., for a job) without prior approval from the course’s heads.
Using resources during a quiz beyond those explicitly allowed in the quiz’s instructions.
Viewing another’s solution to a problem set’s problem and basing your own solution on it.
Your work on this problem set will be evaluated along four axes primarily.
To what extent does your code implement the features required by our specification?
To what extent is your code consistent with our specifications and free of bugs?
To what extent is your code written well (i.e., clearly, efficiently, elegantly, and/or logically)?
To what extent is your code readable (i.e., commented and indented with variables aptly named)?
All students, whether taking the course SAT/UNS or for a letter grade, must ordinarily submit this and all other problem sets to be eligible for a satisfactory grade unless granted an exception in writing by the course’s heads.
First, curl up with these shorts on loops, functions, Caesar’s cipher, and command-line arguments:
Be sure you’re reasonably comfortable answering the below when it comes time to submit this problem set’s form!
How does a while loop differ from a do-while loop? When is the latter particularly useful?
undeclared identifierusually indicate if outputted by
Why is Caesar’s cipher not very secure?
What’s a function?
Why bother writing functions when you can just copy and paste code as needed?
Next, take a self-paced tour through Week 2’s examples, the source code for which can be found at http://cdn.cs50.net/2014/fall/lectures/2/m/src2m/ and http://cdn.cs50.net/2014/fall/lectures/2/w/src2w/, fast-forwarding through any programs with which you’re already comfortable:
Finally, take a closer look at command-line arguments by way of these additional examples from Week 3, the source code for which can be found at http://cdn.cs50.net/2014/fall/lectures/3/m/src3m/:
Alright, here we go again!
Open a terminal window if not open already (as via Menu > Accessories > gedit or via Menu > Accessories > Terminal). Then execute
to make sure your appliance is up-to-date. In general, if you run into errors like "No such file or directory" with the staff’s solutions, best to re-run
update50, just to make sure you have the latest updates.
at your prompt in order to make a directory called
hacker2 in your
Dropbox directory. Take care not to overlook the space between
~/Dropbox/hacker2 or any other character for that matter! Keep in mind that
~ denotes your home directory,
~/Dropbox denotes a directory called
Dropbox therein, and
~/Dropbox/hacker2 denotes a directory called
to move yourself into (i.e., open) that directory. Your prompt should now resemble the below.
If not, retrace your steps and see if you can determine where you went wrong. You can actually execute
at the prompt to see your last several commands in chronological order if you’d like to do some sleuthing. You can also scroll through the same one line at a time by hitting your keyboard’s up and down arrows; hit Enter to re-execute any command that you’d like. If still unsure how to fix, remember that CS50 Discuss is your friend!
All of the work that you do for this problem set must ultimately reside in your
hacker2 directory for submission.
Alright, let’s get more comfortable with
char *, as we’ll eventually see).
Write, in a file called
initials.c, a program that prompts a user for their name (using
GetString to obtain their name as a
string) and then outputs their initials in uppercase with no spaces or periods, followed by a newline (
\n) and nothing more. You may assume that the user’s input will contain only letters (uppercase and/or lowercase) plus spaces. Folks like
Conan O’Brien, and
David J. Malan won’t be using your program. But the user’s input might be sloppy, in which case there might be one or more spaces at the start and/or end of the user’s input or even multiple spaces in a row.
So that we can automate some tests of your code, your program must behave per the examples below. Assumed that the underlined text is what some user has typed.
jharvard@appliance (~/Dropbox/hacker2): ./initials Zamyla Chan ZC jharvard@appliance (~/Dropbox/hacker2): ./initials robert thomas bowden RTB
If you’d like to check the correctness of your program with
check50, you may execute the below.
check50 2014.fall.hacker2.initials initials.c
And if you’d like to play with the staff’s own implementation of
initials in the appliance, you may execute the below.
On most, if not all, systems running Linux or UNIX is a file called
/etc/passwd. By design, this file is meant to contain usernames and passwords, along with other account-related details (e.g., paths to users' home directories and shells). Also by (poor) design, this file is typically world-readable. Thankfully, the passwords therein aren’t stored "in the clear" but are instead encrypted using a "one-way hash function." When a user logs into these systems by typing a username and password, the latter is encrypted with the very same hash function, and the result is compared against the username’s entry in
/etc/passwd. If the two ciphertexts match, the user is allowed in. If you’ve ever forgotten some password, you may have been told that "I can’t look up your password, but I can change it for you." It could be that person doesn’t know how. But, odds are they just can’t if a one-way hash function’s involved.
Even though passwords in
/etc/passwd are encrypted, the crypto involved is not terribly strong. Quite often are adversaries, upon obtaining files like this one, able to guess (and check) users' passwords or crack them using brute force (i.e., trying all possible passwords). Only in recent years have (most) system administrators stopped storing passwords in
/etc/passwd, instead using
/etc/shadow, which is (supposed to be) readable only by
root. (Take a look at
/etc/passwd in the appliance, for instance; wherever you see
x a password once was.) Below, though, are some
username:ciphertext pairs from an outdated (fake) system.
belindazeng:50q/EEJnOmtxc caesar:50zPJlUFIYY0o jharvard:50yoN9fp966dU malan:50q.zrL5e0Sak rob:HAYRs6vZAb4wo zamyla:50NwUtF.OmQNY
Crack these passwords, each of which has been encrypted with C’s DES-based (not MD5-based) crypt function. Specifically, write, in
crack.c, a program that accepts a single command-line argument: an encrypted password. (In case you test your code with other ciphertexts, know that command-line arguments with certain characters (e.g.,
?) must be enclosed in single or double quotes; those quotation marks will not end up in
argv itself.) If your program is executed without any command-line arguments or with more than one command-line argument, your program should complain and exit immediately, with
main returning any non-zero
int (thereby signifying an error that our own tests can detect). Otherwise, your program must proceed to crack the given password, ideally as quickly as possible, ultimately printing to standard output the password in the clear followed by
\n, nothing more, nothing less, with
0. The underlying design of this program is entirely up to you, but you must explain each and every one of your design decisions, including any implications for performance and accuracy, with profuse comments throughout your source code. Your program must be designed in such a way that it could crack all of the passwords above, even if said cracking might take quite a while. That is to say, it’s okay if your code might take several minutes or days or longer to run. What we demand of you is correctness, not necessarily optimal performance. Your program should certainly work on inputs other than these as well; hard-coding into your program the solutions to the above is not acceptable.
Your program must behave per the below; underlined is some sample input.
jharvard@appliance (~/Dropbox/hacker2): ./crack 50yoN9fp966dU crimson
Assume that users' passwords, as plaintext, are composed of printable ASCII characters and are no longer than eight characters long. As for their ciphertexts, you’d best pull up the "man page" (i.e., manual) for
crypt by executing
in a terminal window so that you know how the function works. In particular, make sure you understand its use of a "salt." (According to the man page, a salt "is used to perturb the algorithm in one of 4096 different ways," but why might that be useful?) As implied by that man page, you’ll likely want to put
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE #include <unistd.h>
at the top of your file. Moreover, you’ll want to link with
-lcrypt, as by compiling not with
make but with:
clang -o crack crack.c -lcrypt
You might also want to read up on C’s support for file I/O, as there’s quite a number of English words in
/usr/share/dict/words in the appliance that might (or might not) save your program some time.
/etc/passwd entrusts the security of passwords to an assumption: that adversaries lack the computational resources with which to crack those passwords. Once upon a time, that may have been true. Perhaps some still do. But when it comes to security, assumptions are dangerous. May that this problem set make that claim all the more real.
We should note that this problem set is no invitation to seek out other passwords to crack. Do not conflate these Hacker Editions with "black hat" editions. We hope, though, that by understanding better the design of today’s systems, you might one day build better systems yourself. Besides acquainting you further with C, this problem set urges you to start questioning designs, as vulnerabilities (if not regrets) often result from poor ones.
If you’d like to play with the staff’s own implementation of
crack, well, sorry! :-) Where’d be the fun in that?
When ready to submit, open up Chrome inside of the appliance (not on your own computer) and visit cs50.harvard.edu/submit, logging in if prompted.
Click Submit toward the window’s top-left corner.
Under Problem Set 2 on the screen that appears, click Upload New Submission.
On the screen that appears, click Add files…. A window entitled Open Files should appear.
Navigate your way to
initials.c, as by clicking jharvard, then double-clicking Dropbox, then double-clicking pset2. Once you find
initials.c, click it once to select it, then click Open.
Navigate your way to
crack.cas before. Click it once to select it, then click Open.
crack.crelies on any additional files, proceed to prepare those as well for upload.
Click Start upload to upload all of your files at once to CS50’s servers.
On the screen that appears, you should see a window with No File Selected. If you move your mouse toward the window’s lefthand side, you should see a list of the files you uploaded. Click each to confirm the contents of each. (No need to click any other buttons or icons.) If confident that you submitted the files you intended, consider your source code submitted! If you’d like to re-submit different (or modified) files, simply return to cs50.harvard.edu/submit and repeat these steps. You may re-submit as many times as you’d like; we’ll grade your most recent submission, so long as it’s before the deadline.