Understanding DES Unix (descrypt)


The descrypt algorithm, rooted in the Data Encryption Standard (DES), has a rich history dating back to the 1970s. Originally developed by IBM and adopted as a federal standard by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), DES was widely recognized for its encryption capabilities. Descrypt emerged as a variant of DES, specifically tailored for Unix systems, where it found extensive use in password hashing.
The DES algorithm, upon which descrypt is based, was one of the earliest symmetric encryption algorithms and was considered highly secure for its time. Its adaptation in Unix systems as descrypt signified the need for robust password encryption methods in the burgeoning digital age.


In practical terms, descrypt takes a password input and produces a hash output. For instance, a password like 'example123' when passed through descrypt might produce a hash like
This hashed output is what gets stored in Unix systems, rather than the plaintext password, enhancing security.


Descrypt's primary application was in Unix-based systems for password hashing. It revolutionized how passwords were stored, shifting from plain text to a hashed format, thus adding a layer of security against unauthorized access.


The development of descrypt as a Unix-specific tool was a significant step in cryptographic history. It was a tailored solution that addressed the specific needs and limitations of Unix systems, showcasing an early example of system-specific cryptographic development.

How it Works

Descrypt utilizes a 56-bit key, derived from the user's password, and encrypts a fixed 64-bit block of data 25 times. The algorithm employs a series of transformations and permutations, characteristic of the DES, to produce a unique hash.


A critical feature of descrypt is the use of 'salt', a random value added to the password before hashing. This technique combats the use of rainbow tables and brute-force attacks, ensuring that even identical passwords result in different hashes.


The primary limitation of descrypt lies in its 56-bit key size, which by modern standards is relatively small, making it vulnerable to brute-force attacks. Additionally, its fixed 64-bit block size and repetitive transformations are now considered outdated and less secure.

Particularities Compared to Other Algorithms

Compared to modern hashing algorithms like SHA-256 or bcrypt, descrypt's smaller key size and block length make it less robust. Modern algorithms offer greater resistance to various attack vectors, a feature increasingly crucial in today's cybersecurity landscape.

Computational Power/Cost

The computational power required for descrypt is significantly lower than that for modern hashing algorithms. This, while advantageous in terms of speed and resource usage, also makes it more susceptible to attack with current computing capabilities.

Resistance to Attacks

While descrypt was resistant to the computational attacks of its era, it falls short against contemporary attack methods. Advances in computing, such as parallel processing and GPU-based attacks, can exploit its vulnerabilities more readily.


With advancements in cryptographic techniques and the increasing computational power available, descrypt has become largely obsolete. It is now considered insufficient for ensuring robust security in most applications.

Modern Alternatives

Modern alternatives to descrypt include algorithms like bcrypt, SHA-256, and Argon2. These algorithms offer enhanced security features such as adaptive hashing, resistance to GPU-based attacks, and larger key sizes, making them more suitable for current security needs.


While descrypt may still be compatible with legacy systems, its use in modern applications is limited. It does not meet the security standards required in today’s digital landscape, especially where sensitive data is concerned.


In conclusion, while descrypt played a pivotal role in the evolution of cryptographic practices, its relevance in the current security landscape is minimal. Given its vulnerabilities and the availability of more secure, modern alternatives, its use is not recommended for contemporary applications where data security is a priority.

Share this Post: