bugtraq - Re: Comments re ISC's announcement on bind9 security

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d9aee4770710311428j4b6bfdd2t19d2ba2a2bed0aa6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:28:36 +0200
From: "Network Protocol Security" <netprotosec@...il.com>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Comments re ISC's announcement on bind9 security

On 10/31/07, Shane Kerr <Shane_Kerr@....org> wrote:
>
> There seem to be two ideas you are presenting here, both intended to imply that
> the developers at ISC are technically incompetent:
>
> 1. Using a pseudo-random number generator should be called "crypto".
>

No, but a pseudo random number generator whose output *should not be
predictable* is a *cryptographic* random number generator, hence
"crypto". Isn't it obvious that a DNS server should generate an
*unpredictable* DNS ID? and if the chosen algorithm can be predicted
easily, doesn't this constitute "extremely weak crypto"?

> 2. The particular pseudo-random number generator that BIND 9 now uses is a poor
>    choice.

No, that is not what I said. Don't change the subject. The discussion
is about bind 9.4.1, not 9.4.1-P1. This is obvious from the use of
past tense in both your original statement and my previous email. So I
still maintain that bind9 had (up to and inc. 9.4.1) extremely weak
crypto.