| 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
| ||
|
From: bet at rahul.net (Bennett Todd) Subject: new ssh exploit? 2003-09-16T21:16:34 Blue Boar: > Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that lshd will be > better in terms of future bugs vs. OpenSSH? Good question. lsh seems to be using coding techniques designed to help prevent the sort of silent, quiet bugs that don't show up in normal use but allow attacks. I say seems because I've not yet audited the code. But it works with length-counted strings, memory management is very carefully thought out and clearly documented, and the code is very tightly structured. > You specifically mentioned OpenSSL libs and SSHv1 support as > concerns with OpenSSH. And sure, it seems unlikely that they just > got the very last bug. Actually, it's not so much I'm opposed to sshv1 support, and more like willing to live without it. OpenSSL hasn't had the best security track record to date, although as best I recall none of OpenSSH's bugs of the sort that produce remote root attacks were attributable to OpenSSL bugs. > You also talk about a number of libraries needed by lshd, and some > other things that aren't quite fully implemented in it yet. It's a young implementation yet, that's for sure, and it does lean on some libs that aren't ubiquitous, notably liboop. > Is it just a matter of having some diversity? That's a big motivation, for sure. -Bennett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030917/a9e733de/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists