Re: What are the chances of this encrytion being broken?

Richard Heathfield in sci.crypt:

[...]

Still pretty spiky, though.

I played with LibreSSL and AES256 CBC without salt with an input
of 512 null bytes and IV as 16 times 0x00 and key as 32 times 0x00.

I expexted about 512/256 = 2.0 as average count.

[...]
| 250 3
| 253 3
| 8 4
| 27 4
| 37 4
| 38 4
| 45 4
| 54 4
| 63 4
| 105 4
| 134 4
| 140 4
| 151 4
| 162 4
| 175 4
| 186 4
| 188 4
| 197 4
| 201 4
| 209 4
| 220 4
| 235 4
| 252 4
| 13 5
| 25 5
| 52 5
| 64 5
| 93 5
| 102 5
| 108 5
| 112 5
| 120 5
| 157 5
| 170 5
| 195 5
| 132 6
| 124 7

Seems a little spiky, too. Despite of AES.

The ciphertext has (because of the absence of a salt)
528 = 512 + 16 bytes.

We can now conclude that this is not only not AES but also not AES
shrouded by base64, but yes, a base64 does seem pretty likely. What's
under it still looks home-grown, though.

Here I'm not sure.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? i.e. time to see the algorithm?

My guess is, that it could be "AES256 without salt" after all.

The OP wrote AFAIR, that the algorithm is unknown. Only the "256"
has been mentioned.

Marcel                                                     bllr (382651)
--
   ╭────╮    ╭────╮         ╭───────╮      ╭───────╮     ╭─────────╮   
╮  ╰──╮ ╰─╮  ╰─╮  ╰──╮   ╭──╯  ╭────╯      ╰─╮   ╭─╯     ╰───────╮ ╰─╮ 
╰──╮  ╰─╮ ╰─╮  │  ╭──╯ ╭─╯  ╭──╯  ╭─╮   ╭─╮  ╰─╮ │ ╭──╮  ╭───╮   │   ╰──
   ╰────╯   ╰──╯  ╰────╯    ╰─────╯ ╰───╯ ╰────╯ ╰─╯  ╰──╯   ╰───╯aea7f3