lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:57:52 -0500 From: "Elazar Broad" <elazar@...hmail.com> To: valdis.kletnieks@...edu Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: Creating a rogue CA certificate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 That's true, keeping up with security is not cheap nor easy. Tradeoff's are tradeoff's, the question is, when it comes down to the $$$, is more cost effective to be proactive vs reactive in this case. Time will tell... On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:42:47 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: >On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:13:07 EST, Elazar Broad said: >> And they should have listened then, it was only a matter of time >> before someone fleshed out a practical attack, and that time is >> now. Then again, I am sure there some ATM's out there still >using >> DES. How many time's do we need to prove Moore's law... > >Playing devil's advocate for a moment... > >And perhaps they *were* listening, but realized that security is >about >tradeoffs, and they balanced the cost of doing the upgrade back >then >against the chances that a team as technically and budget-wise >prepared >as this one, *and with nefarious intent*, would do something >significantly >drastic enough to dent their revenue stream. > >Read section 5.2 of the hashclash/rogue-ca paper. The victim CA >is churning >out an average of 1,000 certs in 3 days, let's say at $12 per. >That's some >$600K per year for just the weekends, not counting the Mon-Thurs >span which >is probably even higher (and why they targeted a weekend). So $2M >per year >or more. > >Who wants to place a bet that said CA will be selling *the same >number* >of certs every week, meaning they had *no* economic loss due to >this hack, >because their customers won't actually *see* the news article and >give them >a bad feeling about their CA? And with no actual loss, why spend >the money >to implement the change? > >Hint: It *isn't* just a matter of changing one line in a script to >say >'sha1' instead of 'md5' - you *also* need to go back and look at >all the >certs you've issued already and figure out if they've been >tweaked... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 3.0 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wpwEAQECAAYFAklbsqAACgkQi04xwClgpZh3FQQAgHyAry+xv7AOcUWHLNrGsUqmT9XP BWa4ahzXUE9JTe8FT37fvNhv5ZwouHVYVZPZViwXcu0Kv2SHUSlfp5XGzObx6nDoO6X6 ObF8iBEPORsEkc9kzZDyOylswHRQrNI6c21t9GsntW0Nr8258ttY4xbhKmF0a+TkOWhX /KBLZ4s= =dMtL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Go to massage therapy school and make up to $150/hour, click now! http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxsbdbDEzAmhq24lIfo9SlWI9FpadA4MjMGNNyIfje7zdJ85y/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists