bugtraq - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20071101191406.14284.qmail@securityfocus.com>
Date: 1 Nov 2007 19:14:06 -0000
From: ntn@...workontap.com
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Re: Comments re ISC's announcement on bind9 security

Given the extremely small amount of space for randomization (16-bit query ID's) does a cryptographically strong PRNG really make difference? Aside from stopping an easy prediction, doesn't it just generate a little extra work for a determined malicious individual?

Seems to be a moot point to me---whether the PRNG is  cryptographically weak or not because of the small sequence number space.

-ntn